:    ^M 


i^MONT  ^gC 


(^^j^c^MONT 


«** 


*« 


,^ 


*» 


Av 


•v^;- 


■^f 


PRESENTED    BY 


t-yufcu,     /     /ff fafrrfit/u±a>^^ 


[;nu<    Wffi**"***, 


A 

DISSERTATION 

O  N 

MIRACLES: 

CONTAINING 

An  Examination  of  the  Principles  ad- 
vanced by  DAVID  HUME,  Esqj 

In   an   ESSAY   on    MIRACLES. 

By    GEORGE    CAMPBELL,    D.  D. 

Principal  of  the  Marifchal    College,   and  one 
of  the  Minifters,  of  Aberdeen. 

The  works   that  I  do  in  my  Father's  name,  they  bear 
ivitnefs  of  me.     John  x.  25. 

The  Third  Edition,  with  Additions  and  Corrections. 


PHILADELPHIA:^^ 
Printed  by  THOMAS  DOBSON,  at  the  stone  house, 

IN    SECOND    STREET. 
M  DCC  XC. 


TO 
THE   RIGHT  HONOURABLE 

JOHN    EARL    OF    BUTE, 

ONE    OF    HIS    MAJESTY'S    PRINCIPAL 
SECRETARIES    OF    STATE, 

CHANCELLOR   OF  THE    MARISCHAL 

COLLEGE   AND    UNIVERSITY   OF 

ABERDEEN, 

THE    FOLLOWING    DISSERTATION, 

IN    DEFENCE    OF    A    RELIGION, 
OF    WHICH    HE    IS    AN    EMINENT    PA- 
TRON AND   EXAMPLE, 

I  S,  ^ 

WITH    THE    UTMOST    RESPECT 
AND    GRATITUDE, 

INSCRIBED    BY 
HIS   LORDSHIP'S 
MOST   DUTIFUL, 

MOST    DEVOTED,    AND 

MOST    HUMBLE    SERVANT, 


GEORGE    CAMPBELL. 

March  2.  1762, 


ADVERTISEMENT, 


>r~TyIS  not  the  only,  nor  even  the  chief,  de- 
fiugofthefejheets,  to  refute  the  reafon- 
ing  and  objections  of  Mr  Hu?ne,  with  re- 
gard to  miracles:  the  chief  defgn  of  them 
is,  to  fit  the  principal  argument  for  chrifi 
tianity  in  its  proper  light.  On  a  fubjet~l 
that  hath  beenfo  often  treated,  ytis  impofi 
fble  to  avoid  faying  many  things  which  have 
been  f aid  before.  It  may,  however,  with 
reafon  be  affirmed,  that  there  fill  irmai?w, . 
onthisfubjetl,  great  f cope  for  new  obferva- 
tions.  Be/ides,  it  ought  to  be  re?nembered, 
that  the  evidence  of  any  complex  argiunent 
depends  very  ynuch  on  the  order  into  which 
the  material  circumfances  are  digefed,  and 
the  manner  in  which  they  are  dif played. 

The  Effay  on  Miracles  deferves  to  be 
confdered,  as  one  of  the  mofi  dangerous  at- 
tacks that  have  been  made  on  our  religion. 
The  danger  refults  not fiolely  from  the  merit 
of  the  piece;  //  refults  much  more  from 
that  of  the  author.  The  piece  ifelf 
like  every  other  work  of  Mr  Hume,  is  in* 

genious  ; 


vi       ADVERTISEMENT. 

genious;  but  its  merit  is  more  of  the  orato- 
rial  kind  than  of  the  philofophical.  The 
merit  of  the  author,  I  ae  know  ledge  is  great. 
The  many  ufeful  volumes  he  hath  pub  lifted 
tf/hiftory,  as  well  as  on  crititifm,  politics, 
and  trade,  have  jufily  procured  him ,  with 
allperfons  oftajle  and difcemment,  the  high- 
eft  reputation  as  a  writer.  What  pity  is 
it,    that  this  reputation  Jhould  have  been 

fullied  by  attempts  to  undermine  the  founda- 
tions both  of  natural  religion  and  of  re- 
vealed ! 

For  my  own  part,   I  think  it  a  piece  of 

j uft ice  in  me,  to  acknowledge  the  obligations 
I  owe  the  author,  before  I  enter  on  the  pro- 
pofed  examination.  I  have  not  only  been 
much  entertained  and  infirufled  by  his  works; 
but,  if  I  am  pojfejjed  qf  any  talent  in  ab- 

fratl  reafoning,  I  am  not  a  little  indebted 
to  what  he  hath  written  on  human  nature, 

for  the  improvement  of  that  talent.  If 
therefore,  in  this  trat~l,  I  have  refuted  Mr 
Hume's  Effay,  the  greater flare  of  the  me- 
rit is  perhaps  to  be  afcribed  to  Mr  Hume 
himfelf.  The  compliment  which  the  Ruffi- 
an monarch,  after  the  famous  battle  of  Pol- 
towa,  paid  the  Swedijh  generals,  when  he 


ADVERTISEMENT,      vii 

gave  them  the  honourable  appellation  of  his 
mailers  in  the  art  of  war,  i"  may,  with 
great  fncerity ',  pay  my  acute  and  ingenious 
adverfary. 

I  flail  add  a  few  things  concerning  the 
occafion  and  form  of  the  following  diffe  nati- 
on. 

Some  of  the  principal  topics  here  dif cuf- 
fed, were  more  briefly  treated  in  a  fermon 
preached  before  the  Synod  ^Aberdeen, 
and  are  now  made  public  at  their  deflrc.  To 
the  end  that  an  argument  off?  great  impor- 
tance might  be  more  fully  and  freely  canvaf- 
ed  than  it  could  have  been,  with  propriety, 
in  a  fermon,  it  was  judge  d  nee  ejfary  to  new- 
model  the  difcourfe,  and  to  give  it  that  form 
in  which  it  now  appears. 

The  edition  of  Mr  Hume's  eflays  to  which 
I  always  refer  in  this  work,  is  that  printed 
at  London,  induodeci?no,  1750,  intitled, 
Philofophical  efTays  concerning  human 
understanding.  i"  have,  flnce  fnifhing 
this  trafl,  feen  a  later  edition,  in  which 
there  are  a  few  variations.  None  of  the?rt 
appeared  to  mefo  material,  as  to  give  ground 
for  altering  the  quotations  and  references 
here  1  fed.     There  is  indeed  one  alteration > 

which 


viii     A  D  VE  R  TIS  E  ME  NT. 

which  candour  required  that  I  Jhould  'men- 
tion :  I  have  accordingly  mentioned  it  in  a 
note*. 

The  arguments  of  the  ejfayift  I  have  en- 
deavoured to  refute  by  argument.  Mere 
declamation  /  know  'no  way  of  refuting, 
but  by  analyfing  it ;  nor  do  I  conceive  how 
inconfiftencies  can  be  anfwered  otherwife 
than  by  expofing  them.  Infuch  analyfis 
and  exposition,  which,  I  own,  I  have  at- 
tempted without  ceremony  or  referve,  an  air 
0/" ridicule  is  imavoidable :  but  this  ridi- 
cule, lam  well  aware,  if founded  in  mifre- 
prefentation ,  will  at  loft  rebound  upon  my- 
ielf.  It  is  pojjible,  that,  infome  things  I 
have  miftaken  the  author's  meaning;  lam 
confcious,  that  I  have  not,  ina?iy  thing ,  de- 
fignedly  mifreprefented  it.  . 

*  page  126, 


CON- 


CONTENTS. 

Introduclion,  3 

PART        I. 

Miracles  are  capable  of  proof  from  teftimony,  and 
religious  miracles  are  not  lefs  capable  of  this  evi- 
dence than  others. 

Sect.  pag. 

I.  Mr  Humes  favourite  argument  is  founded 

on  afalfe  hypothecs,         -         -         -         -   5 

II.  Mr  Hume  charged  with  fome  fallacies  in  his 

zvay  of  managing  the  argument,         -  24. 

Ill  Mr  Hume  himj elf gives  up  his  favourite  ar- 

ugment,         -  38 

IV.  There  is  no  peculiar  prefumption  again/}  fuch 
miracles  as  are  fuid  to  have  been  wrought 
in  f upper t  of  religion,  43 

Y.  There  is  a  peculiar  prefumption  in  favour  of 

fuch 


x  CONTENTS. 

fuch   miracles  as  are  faid  to   have   been 
wrought  in fupport of 'religion,  53 

VI.  Inquiry  into  the  meaning  and  propriety  of  one 

of  Mr  Hume's  favourite  maxims,         -         55 

PART        II. 

The  miracles  on  which  the  belief  of  Chriftianity  is 
founded,  are  fufficiently  attefted. 

Sect.  pag. 

I.  There  is  no  prefumption  arijing  from  human 
nature,  againjl  the  miracles  faid  to  have 
been  wrought  in  proof  of  Chriflianity,       -      62 

II.  There  is  no  prefumption  arifing  from  the  hif- 
tory  of  mankind,  a  gain f  the  miracles  faid  to 
have  been  wrought  in  proof  of  Chriflianity,     72 

III.  No  miracles  recorded  by  hiflorians  of  ot  her  reli- 

gions are  fubverfive   of  the  evidence  arifing 
from  the  miracles  zurought  in  proof  of  Chrif - 
ti  unity  or  can  be  confide  red  as  contrary  tejli- 
mony, 97 

IV.  Examination  of  the  Pagan   miracles  menti- 

oned by  Mr  Hume,         -         -         -  108 

V.  Examination   of  the  Popish    miracles  menti- 

aned  by  Mr  Hume,         -  -  -         1 24 

VI.  Ab- 


CONTENTS 


XI 


VI .  Abjlrafting  from  the   evidence  for  particular 

faffs  we  have  irrefragable  evidence,  that 
there  have  been  miracles  informer  times  ;  or 
fuch  events  as,  when  compared  with  the  pre- 
fent  conjlitution  of  the  world,  would  by  Mr 
Hume  be  denominated  miraculous,         -         149 

VII.  Rcvifal  of  Mr  Hume's  examination  of  the  Pent  a- 

teuch,  -  157 

Conclufion,  -  -  -  -         169 


INTRODUCTION. 

"  /^IHristianity,"  it  hath  been  faid,  "  is  not 
V_^  founded  in  argument."  If  it  were  only 
meant  by  thefe  words,  that  the  religion  of  Jefus 
could  not,  by  the  (ingle  aid  of  reafoning,  produce 
its  full  effect  upon  the  heart;  every  true  Christian 
would  chearfully  fubfcribe  to  them.  No  arguments 
unaccompanied  by  the  influences  of  the  Holy  Spirit ; 
can  convert  the  foul  from  fin  to  God;  though  even 
to  fuch  converfion,  arguments  are,  by  the  agency  of 
the  Spirit,  re-ndcrM  iubiervient.  Again,  if  we  were 
to  underhand  by  this  a;  horifm,  that  the  principles  of 
our  religion  could  never  have  been  difeovered,  by  the 
natural  and  unaudited  faculties  of  man  ;  this  pofiticn, 
I  prefume,  would  be  as  little  difputed  as  the  former. 
But  if,  on  the  contrary,  under  the  cover  of  an  ambi- 
guous exnreilion,  it  is  intended  to  infinuate,  that  thofe 
principles,  from  their  very  nature,  can  admit  no  rati- 
onal evidence  of  their  truth,  (and  this,  by  the  way,  is 
the  only  meaning  which  can  avail  our  anta,r 
the  gofpel,  as  well  as  common  fenfe,  loudly  reclaims 
againit  it. 

o 

Th~  L"rd  Jesus  Christ,  the  author  of  our  reli- 
gion, often  argued,  both  with  his  difcipTes  and  with 
his  adverfaties,  as  with  reasonable  men,  on  the 
principles  or  reaf -n,  without  Jus  faculty,  he  well 
knew,  they  could  not  be  fufceptible  either  of  religion 
or  of  la  .  He  argued  from  prophecy,  and  the 
conformity  of  the  event  to  the  prediction *  He 
A 

*  Lake  xxiv.  25.  &c.     John  v,  37.  & 


2  INTRODUCTION. 

argued  from  the  teftimony  of  John  the  Baptift,  who 
was  generally  acknowledged  to  be  a  prophet  +.  Hc 
argued  from  the  miracles  which  he  himfelf  perform- 
ed J,  as  uncontrovertible  evidences,  that  God  Al- 
mighty operated  by  him,  and  had  fent  him.  He 
expoftulates  with  his  enemies,  that  they  did  not  ufe 
their  reafon  on  this  fubject.  Why%  fays  he,  even  of 
yiurf elves,  judge  ye  not,  what  is  right  Jj  r  In  like  man- 
ner we  are  called  upon  by  the  apoftles  of  our  Lord, 
to  adl;  the  part  of  ivife  men  and  judge  impartially  of 
what  they  fay**.  Thofe  who  do  fo,  are  highly  com- 
mended, for  the  candour  and  prudence  they  difeover, 
in  an  affair  of  fo  great  confequence  ft.  We  are  even 
commanded,  to  be  always  ready  to  give  an  anfwer  to 
every  man  that  afketh  us  a  reafon  of  our  hope  \\  \  in 
meehiefs  to  inflruci  them  that  oppofe  themfelves  ||||;  and 
earncftly  to  contend  for  the  faith  which  was  once  deliver- 
ed to  the  faints* .  God  has  neither  in  natural  nor  re- 
veal'd  religion,  left  himfelf  without  awitnefs  ;  but  has 
in  both  given  moral  and  external  evidence,  fufficient 
to  convince  the  impartial,  to  filence  the  gainfayer, 
and  to  render  inexcufable  the  atheiPc  and  the  unbe- 
liever. This  evidence  it  is  our  duty  to  attend  to,  and 
candidly  to  examine.  We  mud  prove  all  things,  as 
we  are  exprefsly  enjoin  !d  in  holy  writ,  if  we  would 
ever  hone  to  hold f aft  that  which  is  good  +. 

Thus  much  I  thought  proper  to  prernife,  not  to 

Urve  as  an  apology  ibr  the  defign  of  this  tra£t,  (the 

defign 

ba  v.  32,  &  3.3-             ?  John  v.  36,     x.  25,  37,  38.   -iv. 

10,  11.               jj   Luke  xii.  57.  *'    1  Cor.  3.    15.           ff  Ads 

.11.         ||  1  Peter  iii.  15.  ii(!  2  Tim.  ii.  a;.       *Judej. 
4-  r  ThelT.  v.  a  1. 


INTRODUCTION. 

defign  furely  needs  no  apology,  whatever  the  world 
may  judge  of  the  execution)  but  to  expofe  the  fhal- 
lownefs  of  that  pretext,  under  which  the  advocates 
for  infidelity  in  this  age  commonly  take  ihelter. 
Whilft  therefore  we  enforce  an  argument,  which,  in 
fupport  of  our  religion,  was  fo  frequently  infilled  on 
by  its  divine  founder,  we  will  not  dread  the  reproach- 
ful titles  of  dangerous  friends,  or  dijguijed  enemies  of 
revelation.  Such  are  the  titles,  which  the  writer, 
whofe  fentiments  we  propofe  in  thefe  papers  to  can- 
vafs,  hath  beftow'd  on  his  antagonills  %  ;  not,  I  be- 
lieve, through  malice  againft  them,  but  as  a  fort  of 
cxr.ufe  for  himfelf,  or  at  leaft  a  handle  for  introducing 
a  very  ftrange  and  unmeaning  compliment  to  the 
religion  of  his  country,  after  a  very  bold  attempt  to 
undermine  it.  We  will  however  do  him  the  juftice 
to  own,  that  he  hath  put  it  out  of  our  power  to  re- 
tort the  charge.  No  intelligent  perfon,  who  hath 
carefully  per u fed  the  EJjay  on  Miracles,  will  impute 
to  the  author  either  of  thofe  ignominious  cha- 
racters. 

My  primary  intention  in  undertaking  an  anfwer  to 
the  atcrefaid  elTay,  hath  invariably  been,  to  contribute 
all  in  my  power  to  the  defence  of  a  religion,  which 
I  efteem  the  greateft  blefling  conferred  by  Heaven  on 
the  fons  of  n.ei,  It  is  at  the  fame  time  a  Jecmdary 
motive  of  confiderable  weight,  to  vindicate  pbilofophy, 
at  leaft  that  moll  important  branch  of  it  which  afcer- 
tains  the  rules  of  reafoning,  from  thofe  abfurd  con- 
fequences,  which  this  author's  theory  naturally  leads 
us  to.  The  theme  is  arduous.  The  adverfary  is  both 
fubtle  and   powerful.     With    fuch  an  adverfary,    I 

fnould 


4  INTRODUCTION. 

fhould  en  very  unequal  terms  enter  the  lifts,  had  I 
not  the  advantage  of  being  on  the  fide  of  truth.  And 
an  eminent  advantage  this  doubtlefs  is.  It  requires 
but  moderate  abilities  to  fpeak  in  defence  of  a  good 
caufe.  A  good  caufe  demands  but  a  diflincl  expo- 
fition  and  a  fair  hearing ;  and  we  may  fay  with  great 
propriety,  it  will  fpeak  for  itfelf.  But  to  adorn  er- 
ror with  the  femblance  of  truth,  and  make  the 
worfe  appear  the  belter  reafon,  requires  all  the  arts  of  in 
genuity  and  invention  ;  arts  in  which  ^cw  or  none 
have  been  more  expert  than  Mr  Hume.  It  is  much 
;o  be  regretted,  that  on  Tome  occafions  he  hath  fo 
ill  applied  them. 


A    D  I  S- 


DISSERTATION 


O     N 


MIRACLES 


PART      I. 

Miracles  are  capable  of  proof  from  teftimcny,  and 
religious  miracles  are  not  lefs  capable  of  this  evi- 
dence than  others. 


SECTION    I. 

Mr  Hume's  favourite  argument  is  founded  en  a  falfe 
hypothefis. 

T  is  not  the  aim  of  this  author  to  evince,  that 
miracles,  if  admitted  to  be  true,  would  not  be 
a  fufficient  evidence  of  a  divine  miffion.  His  delicti 
is  folely  to  prove,  that  miracles  which  have  not  been 
the  objects  of  our  own  fenfes,  at  leaft  fuch  as  are 
raid  to  have  been  performed  in  attefcaticn  of  any  re- 
ligious fyfiem,  cannot  reafonabh-  be  admitted  by  us, 
or  belicv'd  on  theteitimony  of  others.  4<  A  miracle," 
fays  he,  M  fupported  by  any  human  teftimcny,  is 
A  3  more 


6  Miracles  capable  of  Parti. 

"  more  properly  a  fubje£r  of  derifion  than  of  argu- 
"  ment  *."  Again,  in  the  conclufion  of  his  eifay, 
'«  Upon  the  whole,  it  appears,  that  no  teftimony, 
'*  for  any  kind  of  miracle,  can  ever  poffibly  amount 
"  to  a  probability,  much  lefs  to  a  proof  t."  Here 
he  concludes  againft  all  miracle?.  "  Any  kind  of 
miracle"  are  his  exprefs  words.  He  feems  however 
immediately  fenfible,  that  in  averting  this,  he  hath 
gone  too  far  ;  and  therefore,  in  the  end  of  the  fame 
paragraph,  retracts  part  of  what  he  had  advanced  in 
the  beginning.  "  We  may  eftablifh  it  as  a  maxim 
"  that  no  human  teftimony  can  have  fuch  force,  as 
M  to  prove  a  miracle,  and  make  it  a  juft  foundation 
"  for  any  fyftem  of  religion."  In  the  note  on  this 
pafTage,  he  has  thefe  words.  "  I  beg  the  limitation 
«'  here  made,  may  be  remarked,  when  I  fay,  that  a 
••  miracle  can  never  be  prov'd,  fo  as  to  be  the  foun- 
'*  dation  of  a  f)  ftem  of  religion.  For  I  own  that 
"  otherwife  there  may  poffibly  be  miracles,  or 
11  violations  of  the  ufual  courfe  of  nature,  of  fuch  a 
"  kind,  of  to  admit  of  proof  from  human  teftimo- 
"  ny." 

So  much  for  that  cardinal  point,  which  theefTayift 
labours  foftrenuoufly  to  evince;  and  which,  if  true, 
will  not  only  be  fubverfive  of  revelation,  as  received 
by  us,  on  theteltimor.y  of  the  apoftles,  and  prophets, 
and  martyrs .;  but  will  directly  lead  to  this  general 
conclufion:  ■  That  it  is  impofTible  for  God  Almigh- 
'  ty  to  giv£  a  revelation,  attended  with  fuch  evidence 
«  that  it  can  be  reafonably  believed  in  after-ages, 
1  or  even  in  the  fame  age,  by  any  perfon  who   hath 

not 

•    Page  I94.  t   P-  20Z. 


Se&.  I.  PROOF    FROM    TESTIMONY.  7 

«  not  been  an  eye-witncfs  of  the  miracles,  by  which 
'  it  is  fupported.' 

Now,  by  what  wonderful  procefs  of  reafoning  is 
this  ftrunge  conclufion  made  out  ?  Several  topics  have 
been  em  ploy 'd  for  the  purpofe  by  this  fubtle  difpu- 
tant.  Among  thefe  there  is  one  principal  argument 
which  he  is  at  great  pains  to  fet  off  to  the  beft  ad- 
vantage. Here  indeed  he  claims  a  particular  con- 
cern, having  difcovered  it  himfelf.  His  title  to  the 
honour  of  the  difcovery,  'tis  not  my  bufinefs  to  con- 
trovert ;  I  confine  my felf  entirely  to  the  confideration 
of  its  importance.  Tothisendl  fhall  now  lay  be- 
fore the  reader,  the  unanfwerable  argument,  as  he 
flatters  himftlf  it  will  be  found  ;  taking  the  freedom 
for  brevity's  fake,  to  compendize  the  reafoning,  and 
to  omit  whatever  is  faid  merely  for  illuftration.  To 
do  otherwife  would  lay  me  under  the  neceflity  of 
tranfcribing  the  greater  part  of  the  effay. 

4  Experience,'  fays  he,  *  is  our  only  guide  in  rea- 
t  foning  concerning  matters  of  fact  *,  Experience 
'  is  in  fome  things  variable,  in  fome  things  uniform. 
'  A  variable  experience  gives  rife  only  to  probability; 

*  an  uniform  experience  amounts  to  a  prooft.  Proba- 
'  bility  always  fuppofes  an  oppofition  of  experiments 
1  and  obfervations,  where  the  one  fide  is  found  to  o- 

*  verbalance  the  other,  and  to  produce  a  degree  of 
«  evidence     proportion'd     to    the     fuperiority.        In 

*  fuch  cafes  we  mult  balance  the  oppofite  experi- 
«  ments,    and   deduct   the    leffer    number    from   the 

*  greater,  in  order  to  know  the  exacl:  force  of  the  fupe- 
«  rior  evidence  J.     Our  belief  or  afturance  of  any  fact 

1  from 
*   P.  174.         f  p.  175,  176.         \  ibid.  (J  ibid. 


3  Miracles  capable  of  Part  I. 

<  from  the  report  of  eye -witnefTes,  is   derived  from 

*  no  other  principle   than   experience  ;  that   is,  our 

*  obfervation  of  the  veracity  of  human  teftimony,  anil 

*  of  the  ufual  conformity  of  facts  to  the  reports  of 

4  witnefTes  *.  Now,  if  the  fact  attefted  partakes  of 
4  the  marvellous,  if  it  is  fuch  as  has   feldom  fallen 

*  under  our  obfervation,  here  is  a  conteft  of  two  op- 
«  pofite  experiences,  of  which  the  one  deftroys  the 
'  other,  as  far  as  its  force  goes,  and  the  fuperior  can 
'  only  operate  on  the  mind  by  the  force  which  remains. 

*  The  very  fame  principle  of  experience,  which  gives 
'  us  a  certain   degree  of  affurance  in  the  teftimony 

*  of  witnefTes,  gives  us  alfo,  in  this  cafe,  another  de- 
«  gree  of  affurance,  againft  the  fact  which  they  en- 
1  deavour  to  eftablifh  ;  from  which  contradiction, 
'  there  neceflarily  arifes  a  counterpoife,  and  mutual 

*  deftru&ion  of  belief  and  authority  +.  Further,  if 
'  the  fact  affirmed  by  the  witnefTes,  inftead  of  being 
'  only    marvellous,  is  really  miraculous  ;    if  befides 

<  the  teftimony  confider'd  apart  and  in  itfelf,  amounts 
4  to  an  entire  proof;  in  that  cafe  there  is  proof  a- 
«  gainft  proof,  of  which  the  ftrongeft   muft  prevail, 

*  but  ftill  with  a  diminution  of  its  force,  in  propor- 

*  tion  to  that  of  its  antagonist.  A  miracle  is  a  viola- 
'  tion   of   the  laws  of  nature  ;  and  as  a  firm  and 

*  unalterable  experience   has  eftablifhed  thefe  laws, 

*  the  proof  againft:  a  miracle  from  the  very  nature 
'  of  the  fact,  is  as  entire,  as  any  argument  from  ex- 
■  perience  can  poiTibly  be  imagined  J.  And  if  fo, 
'  'tis  an  undeniable  confequence,  that  it  cannot  be 
'  furmounted  by  any  proof  whatever  from  teftimony. 

*  A  miracle,  therefore,  however   attefted,  can   never 

«  be 
*  P.  176.  f  p.  179.  I  p.  180. 


Se<£t.   I.  PROOF    FROM    TESTIMONY  Q. 

*  be  render'd  credible,  even  in  the  low  eft  degree.' 
This,  in  my  apprehension,  is  the  fum  of  the  argument 
on  which  my  ingenious  opponent  refts  the  Strength  of 
his  caufe. 

In  anfwer  to  this  I  propofe  firft  to  prove,  that  the 
whole  is  built  upon  a  falfe  hypothefis.  That  the  evi- 
dence of  teftimony  is  derived  folely  from  experience, 
which  feems  to  be  an  axiom  of  this  writer,  is  at  lead 
not  fo  incontestable  a  truth  as  he  fuppofes  it  ;  that, 
on  the  contrary,  teftimony  ha<h  a  natural  and  original 
influence  on  belief,  antecedent  to  experience,  will,  I 
imagine,  eafily  be  evinced.  For  this  purpofe  let  it  be 
remarked,  that  the  earlieft  a  (Tent,  wheh  is  given  to 
teOimonv  by  children,  and  which  is  previous  to  all 
experience,  is  in  fact  the  moft  unlimited,  that  by  a  gra- 
dual experience  of  manknd,  it  is  gradually  contracted, 
and  reduced  to  narrower  hounds.  To  fay,  therefore, 
that  our  difndencein  teftimony  is  the  refult  of  experi- 
ence, is  more  philofophical,  becaufe  more  confonant 
to  truth,  than  to  fay  that  our  faith  in  teftimony  has 
this  foundation.  Accordingly  youth,  which  is 
unexperienced,  is  credulous  ;  a^e,  on  the  contrary,  is 
diftruftful.  Exaclly  the  reverfe  would  be  the  cafe 
were  this  author's  doc/trine  juft. 

Perhaps  it  will  be  faid,  If  experience  is  allowed  to 
be  the  only  meafure  of  a  logical  or  reafonable  faith 
in  teftimony ,  the  queftion,  Whether  the  influence  of  tefli- 
mony  on  belief,  be  original  or  derivd?  if 'tis  not  mere- 
ly verbal,  is  at  lead  of  no  importance  in  the  preient 
controverfy.  But  I  maintain  it  is  of  thegreatefl:  im- 
portance. The  difFerence  between  us  is  by  no 
means  fo  inconsiderable,  as  to  a  carelefs  view  it  may 

appear. 


io  Miracles  capable  of  Parr  I. 

appear.  According  to  his  philofophy,  the  preemp- 
tion is  againft  the  teftimony  or  (which  amounts 
to  the  fame  thing)  there  is  not  the  fmalleft  prefump- 
tion  in  its  favour,  till  properly  fupported  by  experi- 
ence. According  to  the  explication  given,  there  is 
the  ftrongeft  prefumption  in  favour  of  the  teftimony, 
till  properly  refuted  by  experience. 

If  it  be  objected  by  the  author,  that  fuch  a  faith  in 
teftimony  as  is  prior  to  experience,  mutt  be  unrea- 
fonable  and  unphilofophical,  becaufe  unaccountable  ; 
I  fhould  reply,  that  there  are,  and  mud  be,  in  hu- 
man nature,  fome  original  grounds  of  belief,  beyond 
which  our  refearches  cannot  proceed,  and  of  which 
therefore  'tis  vain  to  attempt  a  rational  account.  I 
fhould  defire  the  obje&orto  give  a  reafonable  account 
of  his  faith  in  this  principle,  that  fimilar  caufes  al- 
ways produce  Jtmilar  effeffs  ;  or  in  this,  that  the  csurfe 
of  nature  will  be  the  fame  to-marr:Wy  that  it  was  ye- 
flerday,  and  is  to  day:  principles,  which  he  himfelf 
acknowledges,  are  neither  intuitively  evident,  nor 
deduced  from  premifes  ;  and  which  nevertheltfs  we 
are  under  a  neceflity  of  prefuppofing,  in  ail  our  rea- 
fonings  from  experience*.  I  Ihould  defire  him  to  give 
a  reafonable  account  of  his  faith  in  the  cleareft  in- 
formations of  his  memory,  which  he  will  find  it  alike 
impoffible  either  to  doubt,  or  to  explain.  Indeed  me- 
mory bears  nearly  the  fame  relation  to  experience,  that 
teftimony  does.  Certain  it  is  that  the  defecls  and 
mifreprefentations  of  memory  are  often  corrected  by 
experience.  Yet  fhould  any  perfon  hence  infer, 
that  memory  derives  all  its  evidence  from  experi- 
ence, he  would  fall  into  a  manifeft   abfurdity.     For, 

on 

*  Sctptical  doubt*.     Part  ». 


Sect.  I.  PROOF    FROM    TESTIMONY.  II 

on  the  contrary,  experience  derives  its  origin  folely 
from  memory,  and  is  nothing  elfe  but  the  general 
maxims  or  conditions,  we  have  form'd,  from  the 
comparifon  of  particular  facts  remember'd.  If  we  had 
not  previoufly  given  an  implicit  faith  to  memory,  we 
had  never  been  able  to  acquire  experience.  When  there- 
fore we  fay  that  memory,  which  gives  birth  to  expe- 
rience, may  neverthelefs  in  fome  inftances  be  correct- 
ed by  experience,  no  more  is  imply 'd,  but  that  the  in- 
ferences form'd  from  the  mod  lively  and  perfpicuous 
reports  of  memory,  fometimes  ferve  to  rectify  thermf- 
takes  which  arife  from  fuch  reports  of  this  iacuhy.as 
are  mod  languid  and  confus'd.  Thus  memory,  in 
thefe  inftances,  may  be  faid  to  correct  itfelr.  The  cafe 
is  often  much  the  fame  with  experience  and  tettimo- 
ny,  as  will  appear  more  clearly  in  the  fecond  fection, 
where  I  fhall  confider  the  ambiguity  of  the  word  ex- 
ferience,  as  us'd  by  this  author. 

But  how,  fays  Mr  Hume,  is  teltimony  then  to 
be  refuted  ?     Principally  in  one  or  other  oi  thefe  two 
ways  :  fir/1,  and  moft  directly,  by  contradictory  te- 
ftimony  ;     that  is,  when  an  equal  or  greater  number 
of  witneffes,  equally  or  more  credible,  atteft  the  con- 
trary :    fecondly,  by  fuch  evidence  either  of  the  inca- 
pacity or  bafenefs  of  the  witneffes,  as  is  fufficient  to 
difcredit  them.     What,  rejoins  my  antagnnift,  can- 
not then  teHimony  be  confuted  by  the  extraordinary 
nature  of  the  fact  attefled  ?     Has  this  confideration 
no  weight  at  all  ?     That  this  confideration  hath   no 
weight  at   all,   V.vas  never  mv    intention    to  main- 
tain  ;  that  by  itfelf  M  can  very  rarely,  if  ever,  amount 
to   a    refutation    againft  ample    and    unexceptiona- 
ble 


12  Miracles  capable  of  Part  I. 

ble  tefiimony,  I  hope  to  make  extremely  plain.  Who 
hath  ever  denied,  that  the  uncommonnefs  of  an  e- 
vent  related,  is  a  prefumptjon  a^ainft  its  reality  ;  and 
tlut  chiefly  on  account  of  the  tendency,  which,  expe- 
rience teacheth  us,  and  this*  author  hath  obferved,  fome 
people  have  to  favririce  truth  to  the  love  of  wonder*  ? 
The  qu  eft  ion  only  is,  How  tar  does  this  prefumption 
extend?  In  the  extent  which  Mr  Hume  hath  af- 
flgn'd  :t,  he  hath  greatly  exceeded  the  limits  of  nature, 
and  :onfequently  of  all  juft  reafoning. 

In  his  opinion,  "  When  the  facl  attefted  is  fuch 
'«  as  has  feldom  fallen  under  our  obfervation,  there 
"  is  aconteft  of  two  oppofite  experiences,  of  which 
"  the  one  deftroys  the  other,  as  far  as  its  force  gaes, 
°  and  the  fuperior  can  only  operate  on  the  mind,  by 
'*  the  torce  which  remains +."  There  is  a  metaphy- 
fical,  I  had  aim  oft  faid,  a  magical  balance  and  arith- 
metic, tor  the  weighing  and  fubtracting  of  evidence,  to 
which  he  frequently  recurs,  and  with  which  he 
feeins  to  fancy  he  can  perform  wonders.  I  wiih  he 
had  been  a  little  more  explicit  in  teaching  us  how 
thefe  rare  inventions  mud  be  us'd.  When  a  writer  of 
genius  and  elocution  expreues  himfelf  in  general  terms, 
he  will  find  it  an  eafy  matter,  to  give  a  plaufible  appear- 
ance to  things  the  moll  unintelligible  in  nature. 
Such  fometimes  is  this  author's  way  of  writing.  In 
the  inftance  before  us  he  is  particularly  happy  in 
his  choic  of  metaphors.  They  are  fuch  as  are  na- 
turally adapted  to  prepoffefs.  a  reader  in  his  favour. 
What  candid  perfon  can  think  of  fufpe£ting  the  im- 
tlity  of  an  inquirer,  who  is  for  weighing 
oi  reafon,  all    the   arguments  on   either 

Who 
*  P-  1C4.  t  p.  1:9. 


SedV.  I.  PROOF    FROM    TESTIMONY.  13 

Who  can  fufpect  his  exadlnefs  v/ho  determines  every 
thing  by  a  numerical  computation  ?  Hence  it  is,  that 
to  a  fuperficial  view  his  reafoning  appears  fcarce  in- 
ferior to  demonftration  ;  but,  when  narrowly  canvaiT- 
ed,  'tis  impracticable  te  find  an  application,  of 
which,  in  a  confiftency  with  good  fenfe,  it  is  capable. 
In  confirmation  of  the  remark  juft  now  made,  let 
us  try  how  his  manner  of  arguing  on  this  point  can 
be  applied  to  a  particular  inftance.  For  this  purpofe 
I  make  the  following  fuppfition.  1  have  lived  for 
fome  years  near  a  ferry.  It  confifts  with  my  know- 
ledge that  the  palTage-boat  has  a  thoufand  times  croiT- 
ed  the  river,  and  as  many  times  returned  fafe.  An 
unknown  man,  whom  I  have  juft  now  met,  tells  me 
inaferious  manner,  that  it  is  loft  ;  and  affirms,  that  he 
himfelf  (landing  on  the  bank,  was  a  fpe&ator  of  the 
fcene  ;  that  he  faw  the  paffengers  carried  down  the 
ftream,  and  the  boat  overwhelmed.  No  perfon,  who 
is  influenced  in  his  judgment  of  things,  not  by 
philofophical  fubtilties,  but  by  common  fenfe,  a 
much  furer  guide,  will  heiitate  to  declare,  that  in 
fuch  a  teftimony  I  have  probable  evidence  of  the 
f a  ck  after  ted.  But  if  leaving  common  fenfe,  I  fhall 
recur  to  metaphyfics,  and  fubmit  to  be  tutored  in  my 
way  of  judging  by  the  eflayift,  he  will  remind  me, 
"  that  there  is  here  a  context  of  two  oppofite  experi- 
i4  ences,  of  which  the  one  deftroys  the  other,  as 
u  far  as  its  force  goes,  and  the  fuperior  can  only 
41  operate  on  the  mind  by  the  force  which  remains/' 
I  am  warned,  that  "  the  very  fame  principle  of 
"  experience,  which  gives  me  a  certain  degree  of 
"  aiTurance  in  the  teftimony  of  the  witnefs  gives  me 
u  alfo,  in  this  cafe,  another  degree  of  afturaiice,  again  ft 
B  •«  the 


14  Miracles  capable  of  Part  L 

"  the  fa£t,  which  he  endeavours  to  eftablifti,  from 
"  which  contradiction  there  arifes  a  counterpoife  and 
"  mutual  deftruftion  of  belief  and  authority*." — 
Well,  I  would  know  the  truth,  if  poftible ;  and 
that  I  may  conclude  fairly  and  philosophically,  hovr 
muft  I  balance  thefe  oppofite  experiences,  as  you  are 
pleafed  to  term  them  ?  Muft  I  fet  the  thoufand,  or 
rather  the  two  thoufand  inftances  of  the  one  fide, 
againft  the  fingle  inftance  of  the  other  ?  In  that  cafe, 
'tis  eafy  to  fee,  I  have  nineteen  hundred  and  ninety- 
nine  degrees  of  evidence  that  my  information  is  falfe. 
Or,  is  it  necefTary,  in  order  to  make  it  credible,  that 
the  fingle  inftance  have  two  thoufand  times  as  much 
evidence,  as  any  of  the  oppofite  inftances,  fuppofing 
them  equal  among  themfelves  ;  or  fuppofing  them 
unequal,  as  much  as  all  the  two  thoufand  put  together, 
that  there  may  be  at  lead  an  equilibrium  ?  This  is 
impoflible.  I  had  for  fome  of  thofe  inftances,  the 
evidence  of  fenfe,  which  hardly  any  teftimony  can 
equal,  much  lefs  exceed.  Once  more,  muft  the 
evidence  I  have  of  the  veracity  of  the  witnefs,  be  a 
full  equivalent  to  the  two  thoufand  inftances,  which 
oppofe  the  fad  attefted  ?  By  the  fuppofition,  I 
have  no  poiitive  evidence  for  or  againft  his  veracity, 
he  being  a  perfon  whom  I  never  fow  before.  Yet  if 
none  of  thefe  be  the  balancing,  which  the  efTay- writer 
means,  I  defpair  of  being  able  to  difeover  his  mean- 
ing. 

Is  then  fo  weak  a  proof  from  teftimony  incapable 
of  being  refuted  r  I  am  far  from  thinking  fo  ; 
tho'  even  fo  weak  a  proof  could  not  be  overturned  by 
fuch  a  contrary   experience.     How    then   may  it  be 

overturned 


Sect.  I.  PROOF    FROM    TESTIMONY.  15 

overturned  ?  Firji,  by  contradictory  teftimony.  Go- 
ing homewards  I  meet  another  perfon,  whom  I 
know  as  little  as  I  did  the  former;  finding  that  he 
comes  from  the  ferry,  I  afk  him  cencerning  the 
truth  of  the  report.  He  affirms  that  the  whole  is  a 
fiction  ;  that  he  faw  the  boat,  and  all  in  it,  come  fafe 
to  land.  This  would  do  more  to  turn  the  fcale,  than 
fifty  thoufand  fuch  contrary  inftances,  as  were  fup- 
pofed.  Yet  this  would  not  remove  fufpicion.  In- 
deed, if  we  were  to  confider  the  matter  abmaclly, 
one  would  think, that  all  fufpicion  would  be  removed, 
that  the  two  oppofite  teflimonies  would  deftrov  each 
other,  and  leave  the  mind  entirely  under  the  influence 
of  its  former  experience,  in  the  fame  itate  as  if  nei- 
ther teftimony  had  been  given.  But  this  is  by  no 
means  confonant  to  fact.  When  once  testimonies 
are  introduced,  former  experience  is  generally  of  no 
account  in  the  reckoning;  it  is  but  like  the  duft 
of  the  balance,  which  hath  not  any  fenfible 
effect  upon  the  fcales.  The  mind  hangs  in  fufpence 
-between  the  two  contrary  declarations,  and  confiders 
it  as  onetoone,  or  equal  improbability,  that  the  report 
is  true,  or  that  it  is  falfe.  Afterwards  a  third,  and  a 
fourth,  and  a  fifth,  confirm  the  declaration  of  the 
fecond.  I  am  then  quite  at  eafe.  Is  this  the  only 
tiTeclual  way  of  confuting  falfe  teftimony  ?  No.  I 
fuppofe  again,  that  inftead  of  meeting  with  any  perfon 
who  can  inform  me  concerning  the  fact,  I  get  from 
fome,  who  are  acquainted  with  the  witnefs  information 
concerning  his  character.  They  tell  me,  he  is 
notorious  for  lying  ;  and  that  his  lies  are  commonly 
forged,  not  with  a  view  to  interest,  but  merely  to 
gratify  a  malicious  pleafure,  which  the  takes  in  alarm- 
ing 


16  Miracles  capable  oe  Part  I. 

•   To  dired  a  refutation 
as  *    -  r,  will  be  fi  fficicnt  to  difcredit  his  report. 

In  '  here  there  isteftimonv  contradicting 

r    f  a  balance  may  be 
ed  with  proprie:  things  weighed  are  homo- 

tteal:  and   when   com radictory  evidences   are  pre- 
sented to  the  mine,  tending  to  prove  petitions  which 
not  be  both   true,   the   mind  muit  decide  on  the 
comparative  ilrength  of  the  oppofite  evidences,  before 
it  vie  er. 

But  e  cafe  in  the   fuppofition   fir  ft  made? 

By  no  means.  The  two  thoufand  inftances  formerly 
known,  and  the  Tingle  inltance  attelted,  as  they  re- 
bate to  c  of  a  contrary  nature,  are 

-  contradictor;.'.     There  is  no  inconfiilency  in  be- 
ing both.     There  is  do  inconfiilency  in  receiving 

the  lafton  weaker  evidence,  (if  it  be  fumeicnt  evidence) 

-  only  than  all  the  former  together,  but  even  than 

of  them  fmg'.y.     Will  it  be  (aid,  that  tho'  the 

rner  inftances  are  not    themfelves  contradictory  to 

to  the  fact  recently  attefted,  they  lead  to  a  conc&J- 

fion    that    is  contradictory:       I   anfwer,     'Tis  true, 

that  the  experienced  frequency  bf  the  conjunction  of 

is,  leads  the  mind  to  infer  a  fimilar  con- 

■  . ..";  to  come.     But  let  it  at  the  fame 

r  be  remarked,  that  no  man  ctirifidefs  this  inference, 

al  evident  with  anv  one  of   thofe  pafi 

hich  it  is  founded,    and  for  the  belief  of 

ifficient  teftimony.     Before  then 

i'.od  recommend -d  by  this  author  can  turn  to 

account,  j   for  him  to  compute 

determine  recifion,  how  many  hundreds, 


Se£t.   I.  PROOF    FROM    TESTIMONY.  17 

how  many  thoufands,  I  might  fay  how  many  myri- 
ads of  inftances,  will  confer  fuch  evidence  on  the 
conclufion  founded  on  them,  as  will  prove  an  equi- 
poize for  the  teftimony  of  one  ocular  witnefs,  a  man 
of  probity,  in  a  cafe  of  which  he  is  allowed  to  be  a 
competent  judge. 

There  is  in  arithmetic  a  rule  called   reduction, 
by  which    numbers   of  different  denominations  are 
brought  to  the  fame  denomination.     If  this  ingeni- 
ous author  mail  invent  a  rule  in  logic,  analogous  to 
this,  for  reducing  different  claffes  of  evidence  to  the 
fame  clafs,  he  will  blefs  the  world  with  a  moft  im- 
portant difcovery.     Then  indeed    he  will  have  the 
honour  to  eftablifh  an  everlafting  peace  in  the  repu- 
blic of  letters  ;  then  we  fhall  have  the  happinefs  to  fee 
controverfy    of   every    kind,    theological,   hiftorical, 
philofophical,  receive  its  mortal  wound:  for  though, 
in  every  queftion,  we  could  not  even  then  determine 
with  certainty,  on  which  fide  the  truth  lay,  wc  could 
always  determine  (and  that  is  the  utmoft   the  nature 
of  the   thing   admits)    with    as    much  accuracy   as 
geometry  and  algebra  can  afford,  on  which  fide  the 
probability  lay,  and  in  what  degree.     But  till    this 
metaphyfical  reduftim  is  difcovered,  'twill  beimpoflib.le 
where  the  evidences  are  of  different  orders,  to  afcer- 
tain  by  fubtraclion  the  fuperior  evidence.     We  could 
not  but  efteem  him  a  novice  in  arithmetic,  who  be- 
ing afked,  whether  feven    pounds    or    eleven  pence 
make  the  greater  fum,  and  what  is   the  difference? 
fhould,  by  attending  folely  to  the  numbers,  and  over- 
looking the  value,  conclude    that  eleven  pence  were 
the  greater,  and  that  it  exceeded  the  other  by  four. 
B  3  Mud 


iS  Miracles  capable  of  Fart  1. 

Muft  we  not  be  equal  novices  in  reafoning,  if  we 
follow  the  fame  abfurd  method  ?  Mud  we  not  fall 
into  as  great  blunders?  Of  as  little  fignificancy  do 
we  find  the  balance.  Is  the  value  of  things  hetero- 
geneal  to  be  determined  merely  by  weight  ?  Shall  fil- 
ver  be  weighed  againft  lead,  or  copper  agaift  iron  ? 
If  in  exchange  for  a  piece  of  gold,  I  were  offered 
fome  counters  of  bafer  metal,  is  it  not  obvious,  that 
till  1  know  the  comparative  value  of  the  metals,  in 
vain  ihall  I  attempt  to  find  what  is  equivalent,  by 
the  afliftance  either  of  fcales  or  arithmetic  ? 

'Tis  an  excellent  obfervation,  and  much  to  the 
purpofe,  which  the  late  learned  and  pious  bifhopof 
Durham,  in  his  admirable  performance  on  the  analo- 
gy of  religion  to  the  courfe  of  nature,  hath  made  on 
this  fubject.  "  There  is  a  very  ftrong  prefumption," 
fays  he,  "  againft  the  mod  ordinary  fads,  before  the 
"  proof  of  them,  which  yet  is  overcome  by  almoft  a- 
"  ny  proof.  There  is  a  prefumption  of  millions  to 
'•  one  againft  the  (lory  of  Caefar,  or  of  any  other  man. 
"  For  fuppofe  a  number  of  common  fads,  fo  and  fo 
"  circurr.ftanced,  of  which  one  had  no  kind  of  proof, 
11  lhould  happen  to  come  into  one's  thoughts  every  one 
"  would,  without  any  poflible  doubt,  conclude  them 
*'  to  be  falfe.  The  like  may  be  faid  of  afinglecom- 
"  morifad*."  What  then,  I  may  fubjoin,  fhallbe 
fald  of  an  uncommon  fad  ?  And  that  an  uncom- 
mon fad  may  be  proved  by  teftimony,  hath  not  yet 
been  made  a  queftion.  But  in  order  to  illuftrate  the 
obfervation  above  cited,  fuppofe,  firft,  one  at  random 
mentions,  that  at  fuch  an  hour,  of  fuch  a  day,  in  fuch  a 

part 
*  Part  a.    chap.  a.   §  j. 


Sell.  I.  PROOF    FROM    TESTIMONY.  19 

part  of  the  heavens,  a  comet  will  ■.  appear  ;  the  con- 
clufion  from  experience  would  not  beas  millions,  but 
as  infinite  to  one,  that  the  propofnion  is  falfe.  In- 
ftead  of  this,  fuppofe  you  have  the  teftimony  of  but 
one  ocular  witnefs,  a  man  of  integrity,  and  Skilled  in 
aftronomy,  that  at  fuch  an  hour,  oi  fuch  a  day,  in 
fuch  a  part  of  the  heavens,  a  comet  did  appear  ; .  you 
will  not  hefitate  one  moment  to  give  him  credit. 
Yet  all  the  preemption  that  was  againft  the  truth  of 
the  firft  fuppofition,  tho'  almoft  as  ftrong  evidence  as 
experience  can  afford,  was  alfo  againft  the  truth  of 
the  fecond,  before  it  was  thus  attested. 

It  is  neceflary  to  urge  further,  in  fupport  of  this 
doclrine,  that  as  the  water  in  the  canal  cannot  be 
made  to  rife  higher  than  the  fountain  whence  it  flows  ; 
fo  it  is  impoflible,  that  the  evidence  of  teftimony,  if 
it  proceeded  from  experience,  fhould  ever  exceed 
that  of  experience,  which  is  its  fource  ?  Yet  that  it 
greatly  exceeds  this  evidence,  appears  not  only  from 
what  hath  been  obferved  already,  but  ftill  more,  from 
what  I  fhall  have  occafion  to  obferve  in  the  fequel. 
One  may  fafely  affirm,  that  no  conceivable  conclufion 
from  experience,  can  pofTefs  ftronger  evidence,  than 
that  which  afcertains  us  of  the  regular  fuccellion  and 
duration  of  day  and  night.  The  reafon  is,  the  inftances 
on  which  this  experience  is  founded,  are  both  with- 
out number  and  without  exception.  Yet  even  this 
conclufion,  the  author  admits,  as  we  fhall  fee  in  the 
third  feclion,  may,  in  a  particular  inftance,  not  only 
be  furmounted,  but  even  annihilated  by  teftimony. 

Laftly,  let  it  be  obferved,  that  the  immediate  con- 
clufion from  experience  is  always  general,  and  runs 
thus;     «  This    is    the   ordinary  courfe-  of  nature.* 

•Such 


20  Miracles  capable  of  Part  I. 

*  Such  an  event  may  reafonably  be  expected,  where 
1  all  the circumftancesareentirely  fimilar.'  Bat  when 
we  defcend  to  particulars,  theconclufion  becomes  wea- 
ker, being  more  indirect.  For  though  all  the  known 
circumftances  be  fimilar,  all  the  aftual  circum- 
ftances may  not  be  fimilar :  nor  is  it  poflible 
in  any  cafe  to  be  allured  (our  knowledge  of  things 
being  at  beft  but  fuperficial,)  thai  all  the  aclual  circum- 
ftances are  known  to  us.  On  the  contrary,  the  direct 
conclufion  from  teftimony  is  always  particular,  and 
runs  thus  ;  *  This  is    the  fa£l  in  fuch  an  individual 

•  inftance.'  The  remark  now  made  will  ferve  both 
to  throw  light  on  fome  of  the  preceding  obferrations 
and  to  indicate  the  proper  fphereof  each  fpecies  of  evi- 
dence. Experience  of  the  paft  is  the  only  rule  where- 
by we  can  judge  concerning  the  future  :  And  as  when 
the  fon  is  below  the  horizon,  we  muft  do  the  beft  we  can 
by  light  of  the  moon,  or  even  of  the  ftars  ;  fo  in  all  cafes 
where  we  have  no  teftimony,  we  are  under  a  neceffi- 
ty  of  recurring  to  experience,  and  of  balancing  or 
numbering  contrary  obfervations  *.     But  the  evidence 

refulting 

*  Where-ever  fuch  balancing  or  numbering  can  take  place,  the 
•ppofite  evidences  muft  be  entirely  fimilar.  It  will  rarely  aflift 
us  in  judging  of  fa&s  fupported  by  teftimony;  for  even  where 
contradictory  teftimonies  come  to  be  confidcred,  you  will  hardly 
find  that  the  characters  of  the  witneffes  on  the  oppofite  fides  are 
fo  precifely  equal,  as  that  an  arithmetical  operation  will  evolve  the 
credibility.  In  matters  of  pure  experience  it  hath  often  place. 
Hence  the  computations  that  have  been  made  of  the  value  of  an- 
nuities, infurances,  and  feveral  other  commercial  articles.  In 
calculations  concerning  chances,  the  degree  of  probability  may 
be  determined  with  mathematical  exactnefs.  I  fhall  here  take 
the  liberty,  tho'  the  matter  be  not  effential  to  the  defign  of  this 
tra<&,  to  correct  an  overfight  in  the  effayift,  who  always  fuppofes, 
that  where  contrary  evidences  muft  be  balanced,  the  probability  lies 


Se£t.  I.  PROOF    FROM    TESTIMONY.  21 

refulting  hence,  even  in  the  cleared  cafes,  is  ac- 
knowledged to  be  Co  weak,  compared  with  that  which 
refults  from  teftimony,  that  the  ftrongeft  conviction 
built  merely  on  the  former,  may  be  overturned  by  the 
ilighteft  proof  exhibited  by  the  latter.  Accordingly 
the  future  hath  in  all  ages  and  nations,  been  deno- 
minated the  province  of  conjecture  and  uncertain- 
From what  hath  been  faid,  the  attentive  reader 
will  eafily  difcover,  that  the  author's  argument  againft 
miracles,  hath  not  the  lead  affinity  to  the  argument  ufed 
by  DrTillotfon  againft  tranfubfianti 'ait 'imt  with  which 
Mr  Hume  hath  introduced  his  fubjecl.  Let  us  hear 
the  argument,  as  it  is  related  in  the  Eifay,  from  the 
writings  of  the  Archbifhop.  "  'Tis  acknowledged 
"  on  all  hands,  fays  that  learned  prelate,  that  the  au- 
"  thority  either  of  the  fcripture  or  of  tradition,  is 
V  founded  merely  on  the  teftimony  of  the  apoftles, 
■f '  who  were  eye-witneftes  to   thofe   miracles  of  our 

"  Saviour, 

in  the  remawfler  or  furplu*,  when  the  lefs  number  is  fubtra&ed 
from  the  greater.  The  probability  doth  not  confift  in  the  fur- 
plus,  but  in  the  ratio,  or  geometrical  proportion,  which  the  num- 
bers on  the  oppofite  fides  bear  to  each  other  I  explain  myfelf 
thus.  In  favour  of  one  fuppofed  event,  there  are  ioo  fimilarin- 
ftances,  againft  it  jo.  In  another  cafe  under  confideration,  the 
favourable  inftances  are  60,  and  only  10  unfavourable.  Though 
the  difference,  or  arithmetical  proportion,  which  is  50,  be  the 
fame  in  both  cafes,  the  probability  is  by  no  means  equal,  as  the 
author's  way  of  reafoning  implies.  The  probability  of  the  nrft 
•  event  is  as  100  to  50,  or  2  to  1.  The  probability  of  the  fecond 
is  as  60  to  10,  or  6  to  1.  Confequently  on  comparing  the  dif- 
ferent examples,  tho'  both  be  probable,  the  fecond  is  thrice  as 
probable  as  the  firft. 


22  Miracles  capable  of  Parti 

,l  Saviour,  by  which  he  proved  his  divine  miflion- 
lf  Our  evidence  then  for  the  truth  of  the  Chriftian 
"  religion,  is  lefs  than  the  evidence  for  the  truth  of 
"  our  fenfes ;  becaufe  even  in  the  firft  authors  of  our 
"  religion,  it  was  no  greater  ;  and 'tis  evident,  it  muft 
"  diminifh  in  palling  from  them  to  their  difciples ; 
w  nor  can  any  one  be  fo  certain  of  the  truth  of  their 
11  teftimony,  as  of  the  immediate  objects  of  his  fenfes. 
"  But  a  weaker  evidence  can  never  deftroy  a  ftronger ; 
M  and  therefore,  were  the  doclrine  of  the  real  pre- 
u  fence  ever  fo  clearely  revealed  in  fcripture,  'twere 
"  direclly  contrary  to  the  rules  of  juft  reafoning  tQ 
"  giveourafTent  to  it.  It  contradicts  fenfe,  tho'both 
"  the  fcripture  and  tradition,  on  which  it  is  fuppofed 
"  to  be  built,  carry  not  fuch  evidence  with  them  as 
'*  fenfe,  when  they  are  confidered  merely  as  external 
"  evidences,  and  are  not  brought  home  to  every  one's 
"  breaft,  by  the  immediate  operation  of  the  Hol^- 
«'  Spirit.*"  That  the  evidence  of  tefimeny  is  lefs 
than  the  evidence  of  fenfe,  is  undeniable.  Senfe  is  the 
fource  of  that  evidence,  which  is  firft  transferred  to 
the  memory  of  the  individual,  as  to  a  general  refervoir, 
and  thence  tranfmitted  to  others  by  the  channel  of 
teftimwy.  That  the  original  evidence  can  never  gain 
any  thing,  but  muft  lofe,  by  the  tranfmiifion,  is  be- 
yond difpute.  What  hath  been  rightly  perceived, 
may  be  mifremembered  ;  what  is  rightly  remembered 
may,  thro'  incapacity,  or  thro'  ill  intention,  be  mif- 
reported  ;  and  what  is  rightly  reported  may  be  naif. 
underftood.     In  any   of  thefe  four  ways   therefore, 

either 


SecV  I.  TROOF    FROM    TESTIMONY.  23 

cither  by  defe&  of  memory,  of  elocution,  or  of 
veracity  in  the  relater,  or  by  mifapprehenfion  in  the 
hearer,  there  is  a  chance,  that  the  truth  received  by 
the  information  of  the  fenfes,  may  be  mifreprefented 
or  miftaken  ;  now  every  fuch  chance  occafions  a  real 
diminution  of  the  evidence.  That  the  facramental 
elements  are  bread  and  wine,  not  flelh  and  blood,  our 
fight  and  touch,  and  tafte,  and  fmell  concur  in  testify- 
ing. If  thefe  fenfes  are  not  to  be  credited,  the  apoftles 
themfelves  could  not  have  evidence  of  the  million  of 
their  matter.  For  the  greateft  external  evidence  they 
had,  or  could  have,  of  his  million,  was  that  which 
their  fenfes  gave  them,  of  the  reality  of  his  miracles. 
But  whatever  ftrength  there  is  in  this  argument  with 
regard  to  the  apoftles,  the  argument  with  regard  to  us, 
who,  for  thofe  miracles,  have  only  the  evidence,  not  of 
our  own  fenfes,  but  of  their  tefttmony,  is  incompa- 
rably ftronger.  In  their  cafe,  it  is  fenfe  contradicting 
fenfe ;  in  ours  it  is  fenfe  contradicting  teftimony. 
But  what  relation  has  this  to  the  author's  argument  ? 
None  at  all.  Teftimony,  it  is  acknowledged,  is  a 
weaker  evidence  than  fenfe.  But  it  hath  been 
already  evinced,  that  its  evidence  for  particular  facts 
is  infinitely  ftronger  than  that  which  the  gene- 
ral conclufion  from  experience  can  afford  us. — 
Teftimony  holds  directly  of  memory  and  fenfe. 
Whatever  is  duly  attefted  muft  be  remembered  by  the 
witnefs ;  whatever  is  duly  remembered  muft  once  have 
been  perceived.  But  nothing  fimilar  takes  place  with 
regard  to  experience,  nor  can  teftimony,  with  any 
appearance  of  meaning,  be  faid  to  hold  of  it. 

Thus 


34  Miracles  capable  of  Parti. 

Thus  I  have  fhown,  as  I   propofed,  that  the  au- 
thor's  rcafoning    proceeds    on    a    falfe     hypothecs. 

It  fuppofeth  teftimony  to  derive  its  evidence 

folely  from  experience,  which   is    falfe. It 

fuppofeth  by  confequence,  that  contrary  obfervations 
have  a  weight  in  oppofing  teitimony,  which  the  firft 
and  mod  acknowledged  principles  of  human  reafon, 
or,  if  you  like  the  term  better,  common  fenfe,  evi- 
dently (hows  that  they  have  not. It  afligns  a  rule 

for  difcovering  the  fuperiority  of  contrary  evidences, 
which,  in  the  latitude  there  given  it,  tends  to  miflead 
the  judgment,  and  which  'tis  impoifible,  by  any  ex- 
plication, to  render  of  real  ufe. 

SECTION      II. 

Mr  Hume  charged  with  Jome  fallacies  in  his   way    of 
managing  the  argument. 

IN  the  elTay  there  is  frequent  mention  of  the  word 
experience^  and  much  ufe  made  of  it.  'Tis 
flrange  that  the  author  hath  not  favoured  us  with  the 
definition  ot  a  term  of  fo  much  moment  to  his  argu- 
ment. This  defect  I  (hall  endeavour  to  fupply  ; 
and  the  rather,  as  the  word  appears  to  be  equivocal, 
and  to  be  ufed  by  the  eflayift  in  two  very  different 
fenfes.  The  firft  and  mod  proper  ilgnification 
of  the  word,  which,  for  diftinction's  fake,  I  (hall 
call  perfonal  experience,  is  that  given  in  the  preced- 
*  ing  feclion.  f  It  is,'  as  was  obferved,  '  founded  in 
1  memory,  and  confifls  folely  of  the  general  maxims 

"  or 


Se£l.  2.      '    PROOF    FROM    TESTIMONY.  £5 

*  or  conclufions,  that  each  individual  hath  formed, 
1  from  the  companion  of  the  particular  facts  he  hath 
1  remembered.'  In  the  other  fignification,  in  which 
the  word  is  fometimes  taken,  and  which  I  fhali 
diftinguilh  by  the  term  derived,  it  may  be  thus  de- 
fined. «  It  is  founded  in  teftimony,  and  confifts  not 
1  only  of  all  the  experiences  of  others,  which  have 
1  thro'  that  channel  been  communicated  to  us,  but 
1  of  all  the  general  maxims  or  conclufions  we  have 
'  formed,  from  the  comparifon  of  particular  facts  at- 
1  tefted.' 

In  propofing  his  argument,  the  author  would  fure- 
ly  be  under  flood  to  mean  only  perfonal  experience  ; 
otherwife,  his  making  teftimony  derive  its  light  from 
an  experience  which  derives  its  light  from  teitimony, 
would  be  introducing  what  logicians  term  a  circle  in 
caufes.  It  would  exhibit  the  fame  things  alternately, 
as  caufes  and  effects  of  each  other.  Yet  nothing  can 
be  more  limited,  than  the  fenfe  which  is  conveyed 
under  the  term  experience,  in  the  firft  acceptation. 
The  mereft  clown  or  peafant  derives  incomparably 
more  knowledge  from  teftimony,  and  the  commu- 
nicated experience  of  others,  than  in  the  longeft  life 
he  could  have  amaffed  out  of  the  treafure  of  his  own 
memory.  Nay,  to  fuch  a  fcanty  portion  the  favage 
himfelf  is  not  confined.  If  that  therefore  muft  b» 
the  rule,  the  only  rule,  by  which  every  teftimony  is 
ultimately  to  be  judged,  our  belief  in  matters  of  fact 
muft  have  very  narrow  bound?.  No  teitimony  ought 
to  have  any  weight  with  us,  that  doth  not  relate  an 
event,  fimilar  at  lead  tofome  oneobfervation,  which 
C  wc 


26  Miracles  capable  of  Part  I. 

we  ourfelves  have  had  accefs  to  make.  For  exam- 
ple, that  there  are  fuch  people  on  the  earth  as  ne- 
groes, could  not,  on  that  hypothefis,  be  rendered  cre- 
dible to  one  who  had  never  feen  a  negro,  not  even 
by  the  mod:  numerous  and  the  moft  unexceptionable 
atteftations.  Againft  the  admiilion  of  fuch  teftimony* 
however  ftrong,  the  whole  force  of  the  author's  ar- 
gument evidently  operates.  But  that  innumerable 
abfurdities  would  flow  from  this  principle,  I  might 
eafily  evince,  did  I  not  think  the  tafk  fuperfluous. 
The  author  himfeif  is  aware  of  the  confequences; 
2nd  therefore,  in  whatever  fenfe  he  ufes  the  term 
experience  in  propofing  his  argument ;  in  profecuting 
it,  he  with  great  dexterity  ihifts  the  fenfe,  and  ere 
the  reader  is  apprifed,  infinuates  another.  M  'Tis  a 
V  miracle,"  fays  he,  "  that  a  dead  man  fhould  come 
«*  to  life,  becaufe  that  has  never  been  obferved  in 
'*  any  age  or  country.  There  muft  therefore  be  an 
,(  uniform  experience  again  ft  every  miraculous  event, 
i!  otherwife  the  event  would  not  merit  that  appella- 
M  tion  *."  Here  the  phrafe,  an  uniform  experience 
cgainft  an  event,  in  the  latter  claufe,  is  implicitly  de- 
fined in  the  former,  net  what  has  never  been 
obferved  by  us,  but  (mark  his  words)  what  has 
?i ever  been  objer-jed  IN  ANY  AGE  OR  COUNTRY.— 
Now,  what  has  been  obferved,  and  what  has  not 
been  obferved,  in  all  ages  and  countries,  pray 
how  can  you,  S  r,  or  I,  or  a  man,  come  to  the 
knowledge  of?  Only  I  fuppofe  by  teftimeny,  oral 
or  written.  The  perfonal  experience  of  every  indi- 
vidual is  limited  to  but  a  pari  of  one  age,  nd  com- 
monly 
*  p   181, 


Se6t.  2.  OF    PROFROM    TESTIMONY  27 

monly  to  a  narrow  fpot  of  one  country.  If  there  be 
any  other  way  of  being  made  acquainted  with  fa£ts, 
'tis  to  me,  I  own,  an  impenetrable  fecret  ;  I  have 
no  apprehenfion  of  it.  If  there  be  not  any,  what 
(hall  we  make  of  that  cardinal  point,  on  which  his 
argument  turns  ?  'Tis  in  plain  language,  *  Teflimo- 
'  ny  is  not  intitled  to  the  lcaft  degree  of  faith,  but 
■  as  far  as  it  is  fupported  by  fuch  an  extenfive  expe- 
*  rience,  a$  if  we  had  not  had  a  previous  and  inde- 
'  pendent  faith  in  teliimony,  we  could  never  have 
'  acquired.' 

How  natural  is  the  tranfition  from  one  fophifm  to 
another  !  You  will  foon  be  convinced  of  this,  if 
you  attend  but  a  little  to  the  (train  of  the  argument. 
"  A  miracle,"  fays  he,  "  is  a  violation  of  the  taws 
"  of  nature  ;  and  as  a  firm  and  unalterable  expe- 
M  rience  hath  eflablifhed  thefelaws,  the  proof  agairift 
'*  a  miracle  is  as  entire,  as  any  argument  from  ex- 
"  perience  can  poffibly  be  imagined  *."  Again, 
**  As  an  uniform  experience  amounts  to  a  proof, 
"  there  is  here  a  direct  and  full  proof,  from  the  na- 
•*  ture  of  the  fact,  againft  the  exigence  of  any  mi- 
"  racier."  I  muft  once  more  afk  the  author  what 
is  the  precife  meaning  of  the  wards  firm,  unalterable, 
uniform?  An  experience  that  admits  no  exception, 
is  lurely  the  only  experience,  which  can  with  propri- 
ety be  termed  uniform,  firm,  unalterable.  Now  fince, 
as  was  remarked  above,  the  far  greater  part  of  this 
experience,  which  comprifeth  every  age  and  every 
country,  mufl  be  derived  to  us  from  teftimony  ;  that 
the   experience    may   be  firm,  uniform,    unalterable 

there 
*  p.  x8o.  f  p.  181. 


28  _  £<  capable  Part  I. 

there  mi:  contrary  teftimony  whatever.     Yet 

by  the  author's  miracles 

wool  ported    b 

At  the  fame  time  to  give  ftrength  to  his  argument,  he 

on  from  the  teftimonies  againft  them.     Thus  he 
ifm,  which  is  calk  the 

quefilm.     What  he  gives  with  doc 

:-:.      K:  a. 
what  in  his  argument  he  implicitly  denies. 

I  that  this,  if  poffible,  may  be  (till  more  mani- 
feft,  let  us  attend  a  little  to  fome  expre&ons,  wbi 

;:.e  irou'.a  ioo.arfr.e  he  h-a  inadvertently  drop:. 
"  So  long,"  fays  he,  «■  as  the  5,   I  pre- 

ou.azies  ar.J   prodigies 
"  be  found  in  all  pro  r:  *■       Why  does  he 

r.  e:'.:;v.  =  :":•■  :  A  man  :"j  io,.:h  a:ta:h-:u  to  experi- 
ence, can  hardly  be  fufpe&ed  to  have  any  other  rca- 
i":-r.  th:-o,    bc-;a:ue  .huo   acccurus  have  hitherto   been 

vci>  as  faci 

imespaft.     But  we  need  not  recur  to  an  inference 

ro  c c : a i n   to. s  a:kr.:w.ecig:r.cu:.      It  is   often   to    be 

met  u::o  in  the  e'.Tay.      In  cue  place   we   learn,   that 

toe  w:t::c:Tes  for  rnirailes   are  an   ufinite   number  tj 

inc v.er,    that  all  religizos  recorcb   of    v.fatever 

.  nod    with  hozou  :.      1   leave   it   therefore  to 

"oe  author  to  explaio,  with  what  ecu oftency  he   can 

aflerr.   thai  the  laws  of  nature  are  eftabiithed  by  an 

.-.::    ::r.  cXTzrioo'  r,  .  .  -:: ■-;:.:."  :e    .:...:. 

ill it  of  teftimony)  and  at  the  Tame  time  allow,  that 
akr.-f.  ail  huxan  ohuuies  are  foil  cf  the  relations  of 


r  .    I '  _'. .  -   r:    I-:: 


Sect.  2.  PROOF    F ROM    TESTIMONY.  29 

miracles  and  pre  /.ich  are  violations  of  | 

jaws.     Here   is,  by   his   own   confeflion,   teftimony 
again:!  teftini  i    very   ample    on    both    : 

H  can  one  fide  claim  a  firm,  uniform,  and 

unalterable  fupportfrom  teftimony  ? 

It  will  be  in  vain  to  object,  that   the  teftimony  in 

fupport  of  the  laws  of  nature,  the 

r  the  violations  of  ihefe  law's ;  and  that, 

r   :         _;r  of 
,  we   (hall  rer. 

I  aft  are  the  teiiimonies  much   ;  ne- 

rous  in  :  an  in  th= 

s:  Natural  6c  marefre- 

snt  than  fuch  as   a:r 

jc  to  be   : 
as  incredible,  becaufe,  in  this  c  not 

fo  often  of  th  .-,  as  oft;  Or,   becaufe 

the  number       natural  births  is  i  ei  :h2a 

that  of  mongers,  lhaj;  thee  r  be 

regarded  as  a  conl  that  can  red 

in  proof  of  the  latter  r      Sik 

di- 
cn  ;  that  the  oppcGie 

,  and  are  e    i    .   c    ntn  ry-  that  thj 

not   the  evi- 
ce  of  the  fads  on  which  it  is   .  :  ,:t   only 

fuch  a  prefumptive  evidence,  as  ma]    be  furmouni 
by  t:  proof.  I  conclusion 

from  ice   is  in  companion   but  prefumptive 

.-.uhrect ;  fuir.  ny  for  a particular  fa££ 

is  direct  and  f 

c3  i 


30  Miracles  capable  of  Parti. 

I  shall  remark  one  other  fallacy  in  this  author's 
reafoning,  before  I  conclude  this  feclion.  "  The  In- 
M  dian  prince,"  fays  he,  "  who  refufed  to  believe  the 
"  firft  relations  concerning  the  effe&s  of  froft,  rea- 
u  foned  juftly;  and  it  naturally  required  very  flrong 
"  teftimony  to  engage  his  affent  to  facts,  which 
41  arofe  from  a  ftate  of  nature,  with  which  he  was 
"  unacquainted,  and  bore  fo  little  analogy  to  thofe 
"  events,  of  which  he  had  had  conftant  and  uniform 
"  experience.  Tho'  they  were  not  contrary  to  his 
"  experience,  they  were  not  conformable  to  it*." 
Here  a  diftindtion  is  artfully  fuggefted,  between 
what  is  contrary  to  experience,  and  what  is  not  con- 
formable to  it.  The  one  he  allows  may  be  proved 
by  teftimony,  but  not  the  other.  A  diftin£tion,  for 
which  the  author  feems  to  have  fo  great  ufe,  it  will 
not  be  improper  to  examine. 

Ifmy^reader  happen  to  be  but  little  acquainted  with 
Mr  Hume's  writings,  or  even  with  the  piece  here 
examined,  I  mull,  intreat  him,  ere  he  proceed  any 
farther,  to  give  the  efTay  an  attentive  perufal  ;  and 
to  take  notice  particularly,  whether  in  one  fingle 
paffage,  he  can  find  any  other  fenfe  given  to  the 
terms  contrary  to  experience^  but  that  which  has  not 
been  experienced.  Without  this  aid,  I  fhculd  not  be 
furprifed,  that  I  found  it  difficult  to  convince  the 
judicious,  that  a  man  of  fo  much  acutenefs,  one  fo 
much  a  philofopher  as  this  author,  fhould,  with  fuch 
formality,  make  a  diftinclion,  which  not  only  the 
efTay,  but  the  whole  tenour  of  his  philofophical 
writings,  fhows  evidently  to  have  no  meaning.     Is 

that 
•  P.  *79 


Se&.  2.  PROOF    FROM    TESTIMONY.  31 

that  which  is  contrary  to  experience  a  fynonymous 
phrafe  for  that  which  implies  a  contradiction  ?  If 
this  were  the  cafe,  there  would  be  no  need  to  recur 
to  experience  for  a  refutation  ;  it  would  refute  itfelf. 
But  'tis  equitable  that  the  author  himfelf  be  heard, 
who  ought  to  be  the  beft  interpreter  of  his  own  words. 
"  When  the  fact  attefted,"  fays  he,  u  is  fuch  a  one,  as 
"  has  feldom  fallen  under  our  obfervation,  here  is  a 
"  conteft  of  two  oppofite  experiences*."  In  this  paff- 
age,  not  the  being  never  experienced,  but  even  the  be- 
ing/*^/?/ experienced  conftitutes  an  oppofite  experience. 
I  can  conceive  no  way  but  one,  that  the  author  can 
evade  the  force  of  this  quotation  ;  and  that  is,  by 
obtruding  on  us,  fome  new  diftin&ion  between  an 
oppofite  and  a  contrary  experience.  In  order  to  pre- 
clude fuch  an  attempt,  I  fhall  once  more  recur  to 
his  own  authority.  "  Tis  no  miracle  that  a  man  in 
"  feeming  good  health,  mould  die  of  a  fudden." 
Why  ?  "  Becaufe  fuch  a  kind  of  death,  tho'  more 
"  unufual  than  2ny  other,  hath  yet  been  frequently 
u  obferved  to  happen.  But  'tis  a  miracle  that  a 
"  dead  man  mould  come  to  life,"  Why  ?  Not 
becaufe  of  any  inconfiftency  in  the  thing.  That  a 
body  mould  be  this  hour  inanimate,  and  the  next 
animated,  is  no  more  inconfiftent,  than  the  reverfe 
that  it  fhould  be  this  hour  animated,  and  the  next 
inanimate;  though  the  one  be  common,  and  not  the 
other.  But  the  author  himfelf  anfwers  the  queftion  : 
**  Becaufe  that  has  never  been  obferved  in  any  age  or 
M  country*."  All  the  contrariety  then  that  there  is 
in  miracles  to  experience,  doth,  by  his  ownconceffi- 

on, 
*  p. 179.  f  p. i8i, 


32  Miracles  capable  of  Part  I. 

on,  confift  fqlely  in  this,  that  they  have  never  been 
obferved ;  that  is,  they  are  not  conformable  to  expe- 
rience, To  his  experience  perfonal  or  derived,  he 
muft  certainly  mean  ;  to  what  he  has  had  accefs  to 
learn  of  different  ages  and  countries.  To  fpeak 
beyond  the  knowledge  he  hath  attained,  would  be 
ridiculous.  It  would  be  firft  fuppofing  a  miracle, 
and  then  inferring  a  contrary  experience,  inftead 
of  concluding  from  experience,  that  the  fact  is 
miraculous. 

Now,  I  infift,  that  as  far  as  regards  the  author's 
argument,  a  fact  perfectly  unufual,  or  not  conformable 
to  our  experience,  fuch  a  fact  as,  for  aught  we  have 
had  accefs  to  learn,  was  never  obferved  in  any  age  or 
country,  is  as  incapable  of  proof  from  teftimony,  as 
miracles  are  ;  that,  if  this  writer  would  argue 
confidently,  he  could  never,  on  his  own  principles, 
reject  the  one  and  admit  the  other.  Both  ought  to  be 
rejected  or  neither.  I  would  not,  by  this  be  thought 
tofignify,  that  there  is  no  difference  between  a  miracle 
and  an  extraordinary  event:  I  know  that  the  former 
implies  the  interpofal  of  an  invifible  agent,  which  is 
not  implied  in  the  latter.  AH  that  I  intend  to  affert 
is,  that  the  anthor's  argument  equally  affects  them 
both.  Why  doth  fuch  interpofal  appear  to  him 
incredible  ?  Not  from  any  incongruity  he  difcerns 
in  the  tiling  itfelf.  He  doth  not  pretend  it.  But  'tis 
not  conformable  to  his  experience.  "  A  miracle," 
"  fays  he,"  is  a  tranfgreflionof  the  law  of  nature  *," 
But  how  are  the  laws  of  nature  known  to  us  ?  By 
experience.    What  is  the  criterion,  whereby  we  muft 

judge 
*  j.  1 8^.  in  the  note. 


Sect.  2.  TROOF    FROM    TESTIMONY.  33 

judge,  whether  the  laws  of  nature  are  tranfgreiTed  ? 
Solely  the  conformity  or  difconfcrmity  of  events  to 
our  experience.  This  writer  furely  will  not  pretend, 
that  we  can  have  any  knowledge  a  priori,  either  of  the 
law,  or  of  the  violation. 

Let  us  then  examine  by  his  own  principles,  whe- 
ther the  King  of  Siam,  of  whom  the  ftory  he  alludes 
to,  is  related  by  Locke  +,  could  have  fufficient  evidence 
from  teftimony,  of  a  fact  fo  contrary  to  his  experience 
as  the  freezing  of  water.  He  could  juft  fay  as  much 
of  this  event,  as  the  author  can  fay  of  a  dead  man's 
being  reftored  to  life.  ■  Such  a  thing  was  never  ob- 
'  ferved,  as  far  as  I  could  learn,  in  any  age  or 
country.'  If  the  things  themfelves  too  are  imparti- 
ally confidered  and  independently  of  the  notions  ac- 
quired by  us  in  thefe  northern  climates,  we  fhould 
account  the  firft  at  leaftas  extraordinary  as  the  fecond. 
That  fo  pliant  a  body  as  water  fhould  become  hard 
like  pavement,  fo  as  to  bear  up  an  elephant  on  its  fur- 
face,  is  as  unlikely  in  itfelf,  as  that  a  body  inanimate 
to-day  fhould  be  animated  to-morrow.  Nay,  to  the 
Indian  monarch,  I  muft  think,  that  the  firft  would 
appear  more  a  miracle,  more  contrary  to  experience 
than  the  fecond.  If  he  had  been  acquainted  with 
tee  or  frozen  water,  and  afterwards  feen  it  become 
fluid;  but  had  never  feen  nor  learned,  that  after  it 
was  melted,  it  became  hard  again,  the  relation  muft 
have  appeared  marvellous,  as  the  procefs  from  fluidity 
to  hardnefs  never  had  been  experienced,  tho'  the 
reverfe  often  had.     But  I  believe    nobody  will  que- 

ftion, 

f  Eflay  on  human  underftanding,  book  4.  chap.  3'.  §  5. 


34-  Miracles  capable  of  Part  I. 

{Hon,  that  on  this  fuppofi  would  not  have   ap- 

peared quite  fo  ftraj  :'  t  this  fuppofuion 

makes  the  inftancem  on  hereftoring  of  the 

dead  to  life.     The  proceis  from  *r  to  inanimate 

we  are  all  acquainted  with  ;  and  fuch  a  refto- 

ration,  but  the  rever ling   of  this    |  ?     So  little 

reafon  had  the  author  to  insinuate,  i  lie  one  was 

only  net  conformable,  ihe  other  ,  .  ■  oi  xperience. 
If  there  be  a  difference  in  this  refpeA,  the  fird  to  one 
alike  unacq.iainted  with  both,  muft  apprar  the  more 
contrary  of  the  two. 

Does  it  alter  the  matter,  that  he  calls  the  former 
"  a  fact  which:  arefe  from  a  Mate  of  nature,  with 
«'  which  the  Indian  was  unacquainted  ?"  Was  not 
fuch  a  ftate  quite  unconformable,  or  (which  in  the 
author's  language  I  have  fho  wn  to  be  the  fame)  contra- 
ry to  his  experience  ?  Is  then  a  ftate  of  nature  which 
is  contrary  to  experience,  more  credible  than  a  Tingle 
fact  contrary  to  experience  ?  I  want  the  folution  of 
one  difficulty  :  The  author,  in  order  to  fatisfy  me, 
prefents  me  with  a  thcufand  others.  Is  this  fuitable 
to  the  method  he propofes  in  another  place,  of  admit- 
ting always  the  lefs  miracle  and  rejecting  the 
greater  *  ?  Is  it  not,  on  the  contrary,  admitting 
without  any  difficulty  the  greater  miracle,  and 
thereby  removing  the  difficulty,  which  he  otherwife 
would  have  had  in  admitting  the  lefs  ?  Does  he  for- 
get, that  to  exhibit  a  ftate  of  nature  entirely  differ- 
ent from  what  we  experience  at  prefent,  is  one  ot 
thofe  enormous  prodigies,  which,  in  his  account, 
render  the  Pentateuch  unworthy  of  credit  +  ?     "  No 

"  Indian"1 
*  p.  182.  f  p.  206. 


Seel.  I.  PROOF    FROM    TESTIMONY.  35 

Indian,"  fays  he  in  the  note,  u  'tis  evident,  could 
"  have  experience  that  water  did  not  freeze  in  cold 
'«  climates.  This  is  placing  nature  in  a  fituation 
'*  quite  unknown  to  him,  and  'tis  impoffible  for 
"  him  to  tell  a  priori,  what  will  refult  from  it." 
This  is  precifely,  as  if,  in  reply  to  the  author's 
objection  from  experience  againft  the  raifing  of  a 
dead  man  (fuppofe  Lazarus)  to  life,  I  fhould  retort  : 
'  Neither  you,  Sir,  nor  any  who  live  in  this  century 

*  can  have  experience,  that  a  dead  man  could  not  be 
'  reftored  to  life  at    the  command   of  one  divinely 

■  commiffioned  to  give  a  revelation  to  men.  This 
1  is    placing  nature  in   a  fituation  quite  unknown  to 

*  you,  and  'tis  impoffible  for  you  to  tell  a  priori  what 
1  will  refult  from  it.  This  therefore  is  not  contrary 
1  to  the  courfeof  nature,  in    cafes  where  all  the  cir- 

*  cumftances  are  the  fame.     As  you  never   faw  one 

*  vefted  with     fuch     a  commiffion,    you      are    as 

*  unexperienced,    as    ignorant    of    this    point,    as 

*  the  inhabitants   of   Sumatra  are   of  the    frofts  in 

*  Mufcovy  ;  you    cannot    therefore  reafonably,  any 

■  more  than  they,  be  pofitive  as  to  theconfequences.' 
Should  he  rejoin,  as  doubtlefs  he  would,  '  This  is 
1  not    taking  away  the  difficulty  ;  but,  like  the  ele- 

*  phant  and  the  tortoife,  in    the    account    given   by 

*  fome  barbarians  of  the  manner  in  which  the  earth  is 
'  fupported,  it  only  fhit'ts  the  difficulty  a  ftep  further 
«  back.  My  objection  ftill  recurs.  That  any  man 
'  mould  be  endowed  with  fuch  power  is  contrary  to 
f  experience,  and  therefore  incredible  :'  Should  he,  I 
fay,  rejoin  in  this  manner,  I  coald  only  add,    *  Pray 

*  Sir,  revife  your  own  words  lately  quoted,  and  con- 

sider 


36  Miracles   capable  of  Part  I 

1  flder  impartially  whether  they  be  not  as  glaringly 
1  expofed  to  the  like  reply.'  For  my  part,  lean 
only  perceive  one  difference  that  is  material  between 
the  two  cafes.  Yon  frankly  confefs,  that  with  re- 
gard to  the  freezing  of  water,  befides  the  abfolute  want 
of  experience,  there  would  be  from  analogy  a  prefump- 
tion  againft  it,  which  ought  to  weigh  with  a  rational 
Indian.  I  think,  on  the  contrary,  in  the  cafe  fup- 
pofed  by  me  of  one  commiflioned  by  Heaven,  there  is 
atleaft  no  preemption  againft  the  exertion  of  fuch  a 
miraculous  power.  There  is  rather  a  preemption 
in  its  favour. 

Does  the  author  then  fay,  that  no  teftimony  could 
give  the  King  of  Siam  fufficient  evidence  of  the 
effects  of  cold  on  water  ?  No.  By  implication  he 
fays  the  contrary  :  "  It  required  very  ftrong  tefti- 
mony."' Will  he  fay,  that  thofe  moft  aftonifhing 
effects  of  electricity  lately  difcovered,  fo  entirely 
unanalogous  to  every  thing  before  experienced,  will 
he  fay,  that  fuch  fads  no  reafonable  man  could  have 
fufficient  evidence  from  teftimony  to  believe  ?  No. 
We  may  prefume,  he  will  not,  from  his  deciCon  in 
the  former  cafe  ;  and  if  hefhould,  the  common  fenfe 
of  mankind  would  reclaim  againft  his  extravagance. 
Yet  'tis  obvious  to  every  confiderate  reader,  that  his 
argument  concludes  equally  againft  thofe  truly  mar- 
vellous, as  againft  miraculous  events  ;  both  being 
alike  unconformable,  or  alike  contrary  to  former  ex- 
perience *. 

Thus 

*  T  cannot  forbear  to  cbferve,  that  many  of  the  principal  terms 
employed  in  the  effay,  are  ufed  in  a  manner  extremely  vague  and 

unphilofophica/ 


Sect.    2.  PROOF    FROM    TESTIMONY.  37 

Thus  I  think  I  have  fhown,  that   the   author  is 

chargeable  with  fome  fallacies,  in  his  way  of  mana_ 

D  ging 

unphilofophical.  I  have  remarked  the  confuflon  I  find  in  the  ap_ 
plication  of  the  words,  experience,  contrariety ,  conformity  :  I  might 
remark  the  fame  thing  of  the  word,  miracle.  "  A  miracle,"  'tis 
faid,  p.  182,  in  the  note,  "  may  be  accurately  defined,  a  trans- 
"  GRESSION  of  a  laiv  of  nature,  by  a  particular  volition  of  'the  Deity , 
"  or  by  the  inter pofal  of  fome  invifible  agent"  The  word  tranfgref- 
fan  invariably  denotes  a  criminal  oppofition  to  authority.  The 
author's  accuracy  in  reprefenting  God  as  a  tranfgreffor,  I  have 
not  the  perfpicacity  to  difcern.  Does  he  intend,  by  throwing 
fomething  monftrous  into  the  definition,  to  infufe  into  the  reader 
a  prejudice  againft  the  thing  defined  ?  But  fuppofing  that  thro' 
inadvertency,  he  had  ufed  the  term  tranfgrejpon,  inftead  offujpen- 
Jion,  which  would  have  been  both  intelligible  and  proper ;  one 
would  at  lead;  expect,  that  the  word  miracle  in  the  effay,  always 
expreft  the  fenfe  of  the  definition.  But  this  it  evidently  does  not. 
Thus  in  the  inflance  of  the  miracle  fuppofed  (p.  203,  in  the  note) 
he  calls  it,  in  the  beginning  of  the  paragraph,  "  A  violation  of 
*'  the  ufual  courfe  of  nature  ;"  but  in  the  end,  after  telling  us 
that  fuch  a  miracle,  on  the  evidence  fuppofed,  **  our  prefent  phi- 
"  lofophers  ought  to  receive  for  certain,"  he  fubjoins,  (how  con- 
fiftently,  let  the  reader  judge)  "  and  ought  to  fearch  for  the 
<c  caufes,  whence  it  might  be  derived."  Thus  it  is  infinuated, 
that  tho'  a  fact,  apparently  miraculous,  and  perfectly  extraordina- 
ry, might  be  admitted  by  a  philofopher,  ftill  the  reality  of  the 
miracle  muft  be  denied.  For  if  the  interpofal  of  the  Deity  be  the 
proper  folution  of  the  phenomenon,  why  mould  we  recur  to  na- 
tural caufes  ?  Hence  a  carelefs  reader  is  infenfibly  led  to  think* 
that  there  is  fome  fpecial  incredibility  in  fuch  an  interpofal, 
diftinct.  from  its  uncommonnefs.  Yet  the  author's  great  argument  is 
built  on  this  fingle  circumftance,  and  places  fuch  an  interpofition 
juft  on  the  fame  footing  with  every  event  that  is  equally  uncom- 
mon. At  one  time,  he  ufes  the  word  miracle  to  denote  a  bare 
improbability,  as  will  appear  in  the  fixth  feftion  :  at  another,  ab- 
furdznd.  miraculous  are,  with  him,  fynonymous  terms;  fo  arealfo 
the  miraculous  nature  of  an  event,  and  its  abfolute  impojfibility.  Is 
this  the  ftyle  and  manner  of  a  rcafoner  ? 


38  Miracles  capable    of        Part  L 

ging  the  argument ;  that  he  all  along  avails    hlmfelf 

of  an  ambiguity  in  the  word  experience  ; that  his 

reafoning  includes  a  petitio  principii  in  the  bofom  of 

it  ; and  that,  in  fupporting  his  argument,    he 

mud  have  recqurfe  to  difiincYions,  where,  even  him- 
felf  being  judge,  there  is  no  difference. 


SECTION    III. 

Mr  Hume  hlmj "elf gives  up  his  favourite  argument. 

*  "\  TR  Hume  himfelf,'  methinks  I  hear  my  reader 
-i-VA.  repeating  with  aftonifhment,   *  gives  up  his 

*  favourite  argument !     To  prove  this  point  is  indeed 

*  a  very  bold  attempt.'  Yet  that  this  attempt  is  not 
altogether  fo  arduous,  as  at  firft  "hearing,  he  will 
poffibly  imagine,  I  hope,  if  favoured  a  while  with  his 
attention,  fully  to  convince  him.  If  to  acknowledge, 
after  all,  that  there  may  be  miracles,  which  admit  of 
proof  from  human  teftimony  ;  if  to  acknowledge, 
thatfuch  miracles  ought  to  be  received,  not  as  probable 
only,  but  as  abfolutely  certain  ;  or,  in  other  words, 
that  the  proof  from  human  teftimony  may  be  fuch  as 
that  all  the  contrary  uniform  experience,  mould  not 
only  be  overbalanced,  but,  to  ufe  the  author's  expreftion, 
Should  be  annihilated  ;  if  fuch  acknowledgments  as 
thefe,  are  fubverfivc  of  his  own  principles  ;  if  by 
making  them,  he  abandons  his  darling  argument  ; 
this  ftrange  part  the  effavift  evidently  ach. 

'*  I  own,"  thefe  are  his  words,  "  there  may  "pof- 
**  fibly  be  miracles,  or  violations  of  the  ufual  courfe 
¥<  oi"  nature,  of  fuch  a  kind  as  to  admit  a  proof  from 

"  human 


Se£t.    3.         PROOF    FROM    TESTIMONY.  39 

"  human  teftimony,  tho'  perhaps"  (in  this  he  is 
modeft  enough,  he  avers  nothing;  perhaps)  "  it 
"  will  be  impofiible  to  find  any  fuchin  all  the  records 
u  of  hiftory."  To  this  declaration  he  fubjoins  the 
following  fuppfition  :  "  Suppofe  all  authors,  in  all 
M  languages,  agree,  that  from  the  ift  of  January 
"  1700,  there  was  a  total  darknefs  over  the  whole 
"earth  for  eight  days;  fuppofe  that  the  tradition  of 
"  this  extraordinary  event,  is  ftill  ftrong  and  lively 
*'  among  the  people ;  that  all  travellers,  who  return 
"  from  foreign  countries,  bring  us  accounts  of  tha 
"  fame  tradition,  without  the  leaft  variation  or 
"  contradiction :  'tis  evident,  that  our  prefent  philo- 
«  fophers,  inftead  of  doubting  of  that  fact,  ought  to 
U  receive  it  for  certain,  and  ought  to  fearch  for  the  cauf- 
*'  es,  whence  it  might  be  derived  *." 

Could  one  imagine,  that  the  perfon  who  had 
made  the  above  acknowledgment,  a  perfon  too  who 
is  juftly  allowed  by  all  who  are  acquainted  with  his 
writings,  to  pofTefs  uncommon  penetration  and 
philofophical  abilities,  that  this  were  the  fame 
individual,  who  had  fo  fhort  while  before  affirmed, 
that  "  a  miracle,"  or  a  violation  of  the  ufual  courfe  of 
nature,  lt  fupported  by  any  human  teftimony,  is  more 
M  properly  a  fubjecl  of  derifion  than  of  argument  t  ;' 
who  had  infilled,  that  "  it  is  not  requifite,  in 
"  order  to  reject  the  fact,  to  be  able  accurately  to 
«'  difprove  the  teftimony,  and  to  trace  its  falfehood  ; 
11  that  fuch  an  evidence  carries  falfehood  on  the  very 
"  face  of  it  ^  ; "  that "  we  need  but  oppofe  even  to 

"  a 


*  p.  203,  in  the  note.  f  p.  194. 


+  i« 


40  Miracles  capable  of  Parti. 

"  acloud  of  vvitneflfcs,  the  abfolute  impoflibilitv,  or," 
which  is  all  one,  "  miraculous  nature  of  the  events, 
«■  which  they  relate  ;  that  this  in  the  eyes  of  all 
"  reafunable  people,  will  alone  be  regarded  as  a 
u  fufficient  refutation*;  "  and  who  finally  to  put  an 
end  to  all  altercation  on  the  fubjecr.  had  pronounced 
this  crack.  "  No  testimony  for  ANY 
«  KIND    OF    iMIRACLE     can     ever 

"  POSSIBLY  AMOUNT  TO  A  PROBABI- 
"    LITY,       MUCH      LESS      TO     A     PROOFt." 

Was    there   ever   a  more  glaring  contradiction ! 

Yet  for  the  event  fuppofed  by  the  efTayiit,  the 
tefiimony,  in  his  judgment,  would  amount  to  a 
probability ;  nay  to  more  than  a  probability,  to  a 
proof;  let  not  the  reader  be  aftonifhed,  or  if  he  cannot 
fail  tobeaftcnifhed,  let  him  not  beincredulous,  when 
I  add,  to  more  than  a  proof  more  than  a  full,  entire 
and  direct  proof;  for  even  this  I  hope  to  make  evi- 
dent from  the  author's  principles  and  reafoning. 
ff  And  even  fuppofing,"  fays  he,  that  is,  granting  for 
argument's  fake,  ■«  that  the  teftimony  for  a  miracle 
M  amounted  to  a  proof,  'twould  be  oppofed  by  another 
'*  proof,  derived  from  the  very  nature  of  the  fa£t, 
"  which  it  would  endeavour  to  eftablifh  ^•*'  Here 
is  then,  by  his  own  reafoning,  proof  againft  proof, 
from  which  there  could  refult  no  belief  or  opinion, 
unlefs  the  one  is  conceived  to  be  infome  degree  fupe- 
rior  to  the  other.  ««  Of  which  proofs,"  fays  he, 
4*  the  ftrongeft  mull  prevail,  but  ftill  with  adiminuti- 

44  on 

*  p.  196,  &c.  f  P*  202'  t  ib- 


Se£t  3.  PROOF    FROM    TESTIMONY.  41 

"  on  of  ks  force  in  proportion  to  that  of  its  antago- 
M  nift  «*"     Before  the  author  could  believe  fuch  a  mi- 
racle  as  he   fuppofes,  he  muft   at  leaft  be    fatisfied 
that  the  proof  of  it  from    teftimony  is  ftronger  than 
the  proof  againft  it  from  experience.     That  we  may- 
form  an  accurate  judgment   of  the  ftrength    he  here 
afcribes  to  teftimony,    let  us   confider    what,  by  his 
own   account,  is  the  firength  of  the   oppofite   proof 
from  experience.     "  A  miracle  is  a  violation  of  the 
"  laws  of  nature  ;  and  as  a  firm  and  unalterable  expe- 
*'  rience  has  eftablifhed  thefe  laws,  the  proof  againft 
"  a  miracla,  from  the  very  nature  of  the  fa&,  is  as- 
"  entire,  as  any  argument  from  experience  can  pofti- 
"  bly   be    imagined  +."     Again,  "As   an   uniform 
"  experience  amounts  to  a  proof,  there  is  here  a  direft 
"  and  full  proof,  from  the  nature  of  the  facl,  againft 
**  the  exiftence  of  any  miracle  J.M     The  proof  then 
which  the  efTayift  admits  from  teftimony,  is,  by  his 
own   eftimate,  not  only  fuperior  to  a  direcl  and  full 
proof;  but  even  fuperior  to  as  entire  a  proof,  as  any 
argument  from  experience  can  poffibly  be   imagined. 
Whence,  I  pray,  doth  teftimony  acquire  fuch   ama- 
zing evidence?       ■    Teftimony,'   fays   the     author, 
1  hath  no  evidence,  but  what  it  derives  from  experi- 
4  ence.     Thefe   differ  from  each  other   only  as  the 
4  fpecies    from  the   genus.'     Put   then  for  t'ejllmony, 
the  word  experience,    which  in  this  cafe  is  equivalent, 
and  the  conclufion  will  run    thus :    Here    is  a  proof 
from  experience,  which  is  fuperior  to  as  entire   a  proof 
from  experience   as  can  poffible    he   imagined.      This 
D  3  dedudioa 

1  P-  i8o»  \  ibid,  \  p.  181* 


42  Miracles  capable  of  Part  I. 

deduction  from  the  author's  words,  the  reader  will 
percieve,  is  ftrictly  logical.  What  the  meaning  of 
it  is,  I  leave  Mr  Hume  to  explain. 

What  hath  been  above  deduced,  how  much  foever 
it  be  accounted,  is  not  all  that  is  implied  in  the  con- 
ceflion  made  by  the  author.  He  further  fays,  that  the 
miraculous  fact  fo  attefted,  ought  not  only  to  be  re- 
ceived, but  to  be  received  for  certain.  Is  it  not 
enough,  Sir,  that  you  have  mown  that  your  moft  full, 
moft  direct,  moft  perfect  argument  may  be  over- 
come ;  will  nothing  fatisfy  you  now  but  its  deftruc- 
tion?  One  would  imagine,  that  you  had  conjured  up 
this  demon,  by  whofe  irrefiftible  arm  you  propofed  to 
give  a  mortal  blow  to  religion,  and  render  fcepticifm 
triumphant,  (that  you  had  conjured  him  up,  I  fay) 
for  no  other  purpofe,  but  to  (how  with  what  facility 
you  could  lay  him.  To  be  ferious,  does  not  this  au- 
thor remember,  that  he  had  oftener  than  once  laid 
it  down  as  a  maxim,  That  when  there  is  proof 
againft  proof,  we  muft  incline  to  the  fuperior,  frill 
with  a  diminution  of  afTurance,  in  proportion  to  the 
force  of  its  antagonift*?  But  when  a  fact  is  received 
for  certain,  there  can  be  no  fenfible  diminution  of 
afTurance,  fuch  diminution  always  implying  fome 
doubt  and  uncertainty.  Confequently  the  general 
proof  from  experience,  tho'  as  entire  as  any  argument 
from  experience  can  poflibly  be  imagined,  is  not  only 
furmounted,  but  is  really  in  comparifon  as  nothing, 
or,  in  Mr  Hume's  phrafe,  undergoes  annihilation, 
when  balanced  with  the  particular  proof  from  tefti- 
mcny.      Great  indeed,  it   muft  be  acknowledged,  is 

the 
*  p.  178.  180. 


Sedl.  4.        OF    PROOF  FROM    TESTIMONY,  43 

the  force  of  truth.  Thisconclufion,  on  the  principles 
I  have  been  endeavouring  to  eftablilh,  has  nothing  in 
it,  but  what  is  conceivable  and  juft  ;  but  on  the  prin- 
ciples of  the  efiay,  which  deduce  all  the  force  of  tefti- 
mony  from  experience,  ferves  only  to  confound  the 
underftanding,  and  to  involve  the  fubject  in  midnight 
darknefs. 

'Tis  therefore  manifeft,  that  either  this  author's 
principles  condemn  his  own  method  of  judging,  with 
regard  to  miraculous  fa&s  ;  or  that  his  method  of 
judging  fub  verts  his  principles,  and  is  a  tacit  defertion 
of  them.  Thus  that  impregnable  fortrefs,  the 
afylum  of  infidelity,  which  he  fo  lately  gloried  in  ha- 
ving erecled,  is  in  a  moment  abandoned  by  him,  as 
a  place  untenable. 


SECTION    IV. 

There  is  no  peculiar  prefwnption  againjl  Juch  miracles  as 
are  jaid  to  have  been  wrought  in  Jupport  of  re- 
ligion. 

IS  it  thenfo,  that  the  deci five  argument,  theeffayift 
flattered  himfelf  he  had  difcovered  *,  which  with 
the  wife  and  learned,  was  to  prove  an  everlafting 
check  to  all  kinds  of  fuperftitious  delufion,  and 
would  confequently  be  ufeful,  as  long  as  the  world 
endures  \  is  it  fo,  that  this  boafted  argument  hath  in 
fad  little  or  no  influence  on  the  difcoverer  himfelf! 
But  this  author  may  well  be  excufed.     He  cannot  be 

always 
*  P.  174. 


44  Miracles  capable  of  Parti. 

always  the  metaphyfician.  He  cannot  foar  inceiTant- 
ly  in  the  clouds.  Such  conftant  elevation  fuits  not 
the  lot  of  humanity.  He  muft  fometimes,  whether 
he  will  or  not,  defcend  to  a  level  with  other  people, 
and  fall  into  the  humble  track  of  common  fenfe. 
One  thing  however  he  is  refolved  on  :  If  he  cannot 
by  metaphyfic  fpells  iilence  the  moft  arrogant  bigotry 
and  fuperftition  ;  he  will  at  any  rate,  though  for  this 
purpofe  he  mould  borrow  aid  from  what  he  hath  no 
liking  to,  trite  and  popular  topics  ^  he  will  at  any  rate 
free  himfelf  from  their  impertinent  folicitations. 

There  are  accordingly  two  principles  in  human 
nature,  by  which  he  accounts  for  all  the  relations, 
that  have  ever  been  in  the  world,  concerning  mira- 
cles. Thefe  principles  are,  the  paffion  for  the  mar- 
vellous, and  the  religious  affection  *  ;  againft  either  of 
which  fingly,  the  philofopher,  he  fays,  ought  ever  to 
be  on  his  guard ;  but  incomparably  more  fo,  when  both 
happen  to  be  in  ftric"i  confederacy  together.  •'  For 
"if  the  fpirit  of  religion  join  itfelf  to  the  love  of 
u  wonder,  there  is  an  end  of  common  fenfe  ;  and 
"  human  teftimony,  in  thefe  circumftances,  lofes  all 
"  pretenfions  to  authority.*"  Notwithstanding  this 
ftrong  affirmation,  there  is  reafon  to  fufpecl:  that  the 
author  is  not  in  his  heart,  fo  great  an  enemy  to  the 
love  of  wonder,  as  he  affe&s  to  appear.  No  man 
can  make  a  greater  conceffion  in  favour  of  the  won- 
derful, than  he  hath  done  in  the  paftage  oAuoted  in  the 
preceding  feclion.  No  man  was  ever  fonder  of  para- 
dox, and,  in  theoretical  fubjects,  of  every  notion 
that  is  remote  from  fentiments   univerfally   received. 

Tlufc 

*  p,  164.  185.  f  &• 


Se&.4-  PROOF    FROM    TESTIMONY.  45 

This  love  of  paradox,  he  owns  himfelf,  that  both 
his  enemies  and  his  friends  reproach  him  with  *. 
There  muft  furely  be  fome  foundation  for  fo  univerfal 
a  cenfure.  If  therefore,  in  refpect  of  the  paflion  for 
the  marvellous,  he  differ  from  other  people,  the  dif- 
ference arifeth  from  a  particular  delicacy  in  this 
gentleman,  which  makes  him  naufeate  even  to 
wonder  with  the  crowd.  He  is  of  that  fmgular  turn 
that  where  every  body  is  flruck  with  aftonifhment, 
he  can  fee  nothing  wondrous  in  the  kaft  5  at  the  fame 
time  he  difccvers  prodigies,  where  no  foul  but  bimfelf 
ever  dreamt  that  there  were  any. 

We  may  therefore  reft  affured  of  it,  that  the  author 
might  be  conciliated  to  the  love  of  ivonder,  provided 
the  j "pint  of  religion  be  kept  at  a  diftance,  againft  which 
he  hath  unluckily  contracted  a  mortal  antipathy, 
againft  which  he  has  refolved  to  wage  eternal  war. 
When  he  but  touches  this  fubjecl,  he  lofeth  at  once 
his  philofophie  compofure,  and  fpeaks  with  an 
acrimony  unufual  to  him  on  other  occafions.  Some 
thing  of  this  kind  appears  from  the  citations  already 
made.  But  if  thefe  lhould  not  fatisfy,  I  mail  produce 
one  or  two  more,  which  certainly  will.  There  is  a 
fecond  fuppofition  the  author  makes  of  a  miraculous 
event,  in  a  certain  manner  circumftanced  and  attefted, 
which  he  declares,  and  I  think  with  particular  pro- 
priety, that  he  would  "  not  have  the  leaft  inclination 
"to  believe  +."  At  his  want  of  inclination  the  reader 
will  not  be  furprifed,  when  he  learns,  that  this  fup- 
pofed  miracle  is  concerning  a  refurreclicn ;  an  event 

which 

*  Dedication  to  the  four  differ  tat  ions.  f  p.  204,  in 

the  note. 


46  Miracles  capable  of  Part  I. 

which  bears  too  ftrong  a  refemblance  both  to  the 
doctrine  and  to  the  miracles  of  holy  writ,  not  to 
alarm  a  modern  PyrrhonifL  To  the  above  declara- 
tion he  fubjoins,  "But  mould  this  miracle  beafcribed 
*'  to  any  new  fyftem  of  religion,  men  in  all  ages  have 
'*  been  fo  much  impofed  on  by  ridiculous  Jlories  of  that 
"  kind,  that  this  very  circumftance  would  be  a  full 
"  proof  of  a  cheat,  and  fufficient  with  all  men  of 
11  lenfe,  not  only  to  make  them  reject:  the  fact,  but 
"  even  rejecl  it  without  further  examination."  Again,  a 
little  after,  "  As  the  violations  of  truth  are  more 
n  common  in  the  teftimony  concerning  religious  mi- 
"  racles,  than  in  that  concerning  any  other  matter 
*'  of  fact,"  (a  point  which  the  author  is  pofitive, 
tho'  he  neither  produceth  facts  nor  arguments  to 
fupport  it)  "thismuft  diminifh  very  much  the  au- 
"  thority  of  the  former  teftimon; ,  and"  (pray  obferve 
his  words)  "  make  us  firm  a  general  resolution, 
"  never  to  lend  any  attention  to  it,  with  whatever 
"  fpecious  pretext  it  may  be  covered." 

Never  did  the  pafiion  of  an  inflamed  orator,  or  the 
intemperate  zeal  of  a  religionift,  carry  him  further 
againft  his  adverfary,  than  this  man  of  fpeculation  is 
carried  by  his  prejudice  againft  religion.  Demagogues 
and  bigots  have  often  warned  the  people  againft  lift- 
ening  to  the  arguments  of  an  envied  and  therefore  de- 
tefted  rival,  left  by  his  fophiftry  they  mould  be  fedu- 
ced  into  the  moft  fatal  errors.  The  fame  part  this 
author,  a  philofopher,  a  fceptic,  a  difpaflionate 
inquirer  after  truth,  as  furely  he  chufeth  to 
be  accounted,  now  acts  in  favour  of  infidelity. 
He  thinks  it  not  fafe  to  give  religion  even  a  hearing. 

Nay 


Seel.  3.         PROOF    FROM    TESTIMONY.  4.7 

Nay  fo  ftrange  a  turn  have  matters  taken  of  late 
with  the  managers  of  this  controverfy,  that  it  is  now 
the  freethinker  who  preaches  implicit  faith  ;  'tis 
the  infidel,  who  warns  us  of  the  danger  of  con- 
futing reafon.  Beware,  fays  he,  I  admonilh  you, 
of  inquiring  into  the  ftrength  of  the  plea,  or  of 
bringing  it  to  the  deceitful  teft  of  reafon  ;  for  "  thofe 
«  who  will  be  fo  silly  as  to  examine  the  affair  by 
u  that  medium  ,  and  feek  particular  flaws  in  the 
"  tefimony,  are  almofl.  fure  to  be  confounded  *." 
That  religion  is  concerned  in  the  matter,  is  reckoned 
by  thefe  fages  fufficient  evidence  of  impofture.  The 
proofs  fhe  offers  in  her  own  defence,  we  are  told  by 
thefe  candid  jndges,  ought  to  be  rejected,  and  rejefied 
•without  examination.  The  old  way  of  fcrutiny  and 
argument  mult  now  be  laid  afide,  having  been  at 
length  difcovered  to  be  but  a  bungling,  a  tedious,  and 
a  dangerous  way  at  beft.  What  then  fhall  we  fub- 
ftitute  in  its  place  ?  The  effayift  hath  a  moft  admi- 
rable expedient.  A  (horter  and  furer  method  he  re- 
commends to  us,  the  expeditious  way  of  refolutim. 
'  Form,'  fays  he,  «  a  general  resolution,  never 
*  to  lend  any  attention  to  teflimonies  or  fails  urgedby  re/i- 
1  gion,  with  whatever fpecious pretext  they  may  be  covered.* 
I  had  almoft  congratulated  Mr  Hume,  and  our 
enlightened  age,  on  this  happy  invention,  before  I 
reflected,  that  tho'  the  application  might  be  new,  the 
expedient  itfelf,  of  refolving  to  be  deaf  to  argument, 
was  very  ancient,  having  been  often  with  great  fuc- 
cefs  employed  againft  atheifts  and  heretics,  and  warm- 
ly recommended  by  Bellarmine  and  Scotus,  and  meft 

others 
*   p.  197.  in  the  note. 


4$  Miracles  capable  of  Parti. 

others  of  that  bright  fraternity  the  fchoolmen  :  Per- 
fons,  I  acknowledge,  to  whom  one  cowid  not,  per- 
haps in  any  other  inftance,  find  a  refemblance  in  ray 
ingenious  opponent. 

I'm  afraid  that  after  fuch  a  declaration,  I  muft  not 
prefume  to  confider  myfelf  as  arguing  with  the  au- 
thor, who  hath,  in  fo  peremptory  a  manner,  refolved 
to  attend  to  nothing  that  can  be  faid  in  oppofition  to 
his  theory.  ■  What  judgment  he  has,'  to  ufe  his 
own  expreflion,  •  he  has  renounced  by  principle,  in 
'  thefe  fublime  and  myfterious  fubjecls  *,'  If  how- 
ever it  mould  prove  the  fate  of  theie  papers,  the  for- 
bidding title  of  them  notwithstanding,  to  be  at  any 
time  honoured  with  the  perufal  of  fome  infidel,  not 
indeed  fo  rivetted  in  unbelief  as  the  efTayift,  I  would 
earneftly  intreat  fuch  reader,  in  the  folemn  ftyle  of 
Mr  Hume,  "  To  lay  his  hand  upon  his  heart,  and 
"  after  ferious  confideration  declare*,"  If  any  of  the 
patrons  of  religion  had  acted  this  part,  and  warned 
people  not  to  try  by  argument  the  metaphyseal  fub- 
tleties  of  the  adverfaries,  affirming,  that  *  they  who 
«  were  mad  enough  to  examine  the  affair  by  that 
1  medium,  and  feek  particular  flaws  in  the  reafoning, 
'  were  almoft  fure  to  be  confounded  ;  that  the  only 
1  prudent  method  was,  to  form  a  general  reso- 
1  lution,  never  to  lend  any  attention  to  what  was 
1  advanced  on  the  oppofite  fide,  however  fpecious  \ 
whether  this  conduct  would  not  have  afforded  great 
matter  of  triumph  to  thofe  gentlemen  the  deids  ; 
whether  it  would  not  have  been  conftrued  by  them, 
and  even  juftly,  into  a  tacit  conviction  of  the  weak- 
nefs  of  our  caufe,  which  we  were  afraid  of  expofmg 

in 
•  p.  185.  f  p.  306. 


Se&.  4.       OF    PROOF  FROM    TESTIMONY.  49 

in  the  light,  and  bringing  to  a  fair  trial.  But  we 
fcorn  to  take  fhelter  in  obfcurity,  and  meanly  to  de- 
cline the  combat ;  confident  as  we  are,  that  reasom 
is  our  ally  and  our  friend,  and  glad  to  find  that  the  e- 
nemy  at  length  fo  violently  fufpects  her. 

As  to  the  firft  method,  by  which  the  author  ac- 
counts for  the  fabulous  relations  of  rnonfters  and  pro- 
digies, 'tis  freely  acknowledged,  that  the  Creator  hath 
implanted  in  human  nature,  as  a  fpur  to  the  improve- 
ment of  the  underftanding,  a  principle  of  curiofity, 
which  makes  the  mind  feel  a  particular  pleafure  in 
every  new  acquifition  of  knowledge.  'Tis  acknow- 
ledged alfo,  that  as  every  principle  in  our  nature  is 
liable  to  abufe,  fo  this  principle  will  often  give  the 
mind  a  bias  to  the  marvellous,  for  the  more  marvel- 
lous any  thing  is,  that  is,  the  more  unlike  to  all  that 
hath  formerly  been  known,  the  more  new  it  is  ;  and 
this  bias,  in  many  inftances,  may  induce  belief  on 
infufficient  evidence. 

But  the  prefumption  that  hence  arifeth  againft  the 
marvellous  is  not  Wronger  in  the  cafe  of  miracles 
(as  will  appear  from  an  attentive  perufal  of  the  fecond 
fecYion)  than  in  the  cafe  of  every  fact  that  is  perfectly 
extraordinary.  Yet  how  eafily  this  obftacle  may  be 
overcome  by  teftimony,  might  be  illuftrated,  if  ne- 
cefTary,  in  almolt  every  branch  of  fcience,  in  phyfio- 
logy,  in  geography,  in  hiftory.  On  the  contrary, 
what  an  immenfe  impediment  would  this  prefumpti- 
on prove  to  the  progrefs  of  philofophy  and  letters, 
had  it  in  reality  one  fiftieth-part  of  the  ftrength  which 
the  author  feems  to  attribute  to  it.  1  (hall  not  tire 
my  reader  or  myfelf  by  recurring  to  the  philofophic 

wonders, 


5^  Miracles  capable  of  Part  I. 

wonders  in  electricity,  chymiftry,  magnetifm,  which, 
all  the  world  fees,  may  be  fully  proved  to  us  by  te- 
ftimony,  before  we  make  the  experiments  our- 
felves. 

But  there  is,  it  feems,  additional  to  this,  a  pecu- 
liar prefumption  againft  religious  miracles.  "  The 
*  wife,"  as  the  author  hath  obferved  with  reafon, 
"  lend  a  very  academic  faith  to  every  report,  which 
"  favours  the  paiTion  of  the  reporter,  whether  it 
"  magnifies  his  country,  his  family,  or  himfelf,  or 
"  in  any  other  way  ftrikes  in  with  his  natural  incli- 
u  nations  and  propenfmes*."  Now,  as  no  object: 
whatever  operates  more  powerfully  on  the  fancy 
than  religion  does,  or  works  up  the  paflions  to  a 
higher  fervour ;  fo,  in  matters  relating  to  thisfubject, 
if  in  any  fubject,  we  have  reafon  to  fufpecl:  that  the 
underftanding  will  prove  a  dupe  to  the  paffions.  On 
this  point  therefore  we  ought  to  be  peculiarly  cauti- 
ous, that  we  be  not  hafty  of  belief.  In  this  fenti- 
ment  we  all  agree. 

But  there  is  one  circumitance,  which  he  hath  o- 
verlooked,  and  which  is  neverthelefs  of  the  greateft 
confequence  in  the  debate.  It  is  this,  that  the  pre- 
judice refulting  from  the  religious  affection,  may 
juft  as  readily  objlru£i>  as  promote  our  faith  in  a  reli- 
gious miracle.  What  things  in  nature  are  more  con- 
trary, than  one  religion  is  to  another  religion  ?  They 
are  juft  as  contrary  as  light  and  darknefs,  truth  and 
error.  The  affecYions,  with  which  they  are  contem- 
plated by  the  fame  perfon,    are  juft   as   oppofite,  as 

defire 

*  p.  aoo. 


Se£L  4.  PROOF    FROM    TESTIMONY.  51 

defire  and  averfion,  love  and  haired.  The  fame  re- 
ligious zeal  which  gives  the  mind  of  a  Chriitian,  a 
propenjity  to  the  belief  of  a  miracle  in  fupport  of 
Chriftianity,  will  infpire  him  with  an  averfon  from 
the  belief  of  a  miracle  in  fupport  of  Mahomet ifm. 
The  fame  principle,  which  will  make  him  acquiefce 
in  evidence  kfs  than  fufficient  in  the  one  cafe,  will 
make  him  require  evidence  more  than  fufticient  in 
the  other. 

Before  then  the  remark  of  the  author  can  be  of 
any  ufe  in  directing  our  judgment,  as  to  the  evidence 
of  miracles  attefted,  we  muft  confider  whether  the 
original  tenets  of  the  witneiles  would  naturally  have 
buffed  their  minds  in  favour  of  the  miracles,  or  in 
oppojition  to  them.  If  the  former  was  the  cafe,  the 
teftimony  is  [o  much  the  kfs  to  be  regarded  ;  if  the 
latter,  fo  much  the  ?nore.  Will  it  fatisfy  on  this 
head  to  acquaint  us,  that  the  prejudices  of  the  wit- 
iiefles  muft  have  favoured  the  miracles,  fmce  they 
were  zealous  promoters  of  the  doclrine,  in  fupport 
of  which  thofe  miracles  are  faid  to  have  been  per- 
formed ?  To  anfvver  thus  would  be  to  mifunderftand 
the  point.  The  queftion  is,  Was  this  doctrine  the 
faith  of  the  witnefTes,  before  they  faw,  or  fancied 
they  faw  the  miracles  ?  If  it  was,  I  agree  with  him. 
Great,  very  great  allowance  muft  be  made  for  the 
prejudices  of  education,  for  principles,  early  perhaps, 
carefully,  and  deeply  rooted  in  their  minds,  and  for 
the  religious  affection  founded  in  thefe  principles  \ 
which  allowance  muft  always  derogate  from  the 
weight  of  their  teftimony.  But  if  the  faith  of  the 
witnefTes  Rood,  originally  in  oppoiition  to  the  doclrine 

attefted 


5$  Miracles  capable  of  Parti. 

attefted  by  the  miracles ;  if  the  only  account  that  can 
be  given  of  their  converfion,  is  the  conviclion 
which  the  miracles  produced  in  them;  it  mud  be  a 
prepofterous  way  of  arguing,  to  derive  their  convic- 
tion from  a  religious  zeal,  which  would  at  firft  ob- 
ftinately  withftand,  and  for  fome  time  hinder  fuch 
conviclion.  On  the  contrary,  that  the  evidence  ari- 
iing  from  miracles  performed  in  proof  of  a  doctrine 
difbelieved,  and  confequently  hated  before,  did  in 
facl  furmount  that  obftacle,  and  conquer  all  the  op- 
pofition  arifing  thence,  is  a  very  flrong  prefurrrption 
in  favour  of  that  evidence  :  juft  as  ftrong  a  preemp- 
tion in  its  favour,  as  it  would  have  been  againft  it, 
had  all  their  former  zeal,  and  principles,  and  preju- 
dices, co-operated  with  the  evidence,  whatever  it 
was,  in  gaining  an  entire  anient. 

Hence  there  is  the  greatcft  difparity  in  this  refpecl:, 
a  difparity  which  deferves  to  be  particularly  attended 
to,  betwixt  the  evidence  of  miracles  performed  in 
proof  of  a  religion  to  he  eftablifhed,  and  in  contradic- 
tion to  opinions  generally  received  ;  and  the  evidence 
of  miracles  performed  in  fupport  of  a  religion  already 
eftablifhed,  and  in  confirmation  of  opinions  generally 
received.  Hence  alfo  the  greateft  difparity  betwixt 
the  miracles  recorded  by  the  evangelifts,  and  thofe 
related  by  Mariana,  Bede,  or  any  monkifh  hiftorian. 

There  is  then  no  peculiar  prefumption  againft  re- 
ligious miracles  merely  as  fuch  ;  if  in  certain  cir- 
cumftances there  is  a  prefumption  againft  them  :  the 
prefumption  arifeth  folely  from  the  circumftances, 
infomuch  that,  in  the  oppofite  circumftances,  it  is  as 
itron^ly  in  their  favour. 

SECT. 


I 


Se£t.    5.         PROOF    FROM    TESTIMONY.  53 

SECTION     V. 

There  is  a  peculiar  prefumption  in  favour  of  fuel) 
miracles  as  are  f aid  to  have  been  wrought  in  fuppsrt  of 
religion. 

N  this  fe&ion  I  propofe  to  confider  the  reverfe  of 
the  queftion  treated  in  the  former.  In  the  former 
I  proved  that  there  is  no  peculiar  prefumption  againft 
religious  miracles  ;  I  now  inquire  whether  there  be 
any  in  their  favour.  The  queftion  is  important,  and 
intimately  connected  with  thefubjecl. 

The  boldeft  infidel  will  not  deny,  that  the 
immortality  of  the  foul,  a  future  and  eternal  ftate,  and 
the  connection  of  ourhappinefs  or  mifery  in  that  (fate, 
with  our  prefent  good  or  bad  conduct,  not  to  mention 
the  doctrines  concerning  the  divine  unity  and  perfec- 
tions, are  tenets  which  carry  no  abfurdity  in  them. 
They  may  be  true  for  aught  he  knows.  He  dis- 
believes them,  not  becaufe  they  are  incredible  in 
themfelves,  but  becaufe  he  hath  not  evidence  of  their 
truth.  He  pretends  not  to  difprove  them,  nor  does  he 
think  the  tafk  incumbent  on  him.  He  only  pleads, 
that  before  he  can  yield  them  his  aflent,  they  mud 
be  proved. 

Now,  as  whatever  is  poffible,  maybe  fuppofed,  let 
us  fuppofe  that  the  dogmas  above  mentioned  are  all 
infallible  truths  ;  and  let  the  unbeliever  fay,  whether 
he  can  conceive  an  object  worthier  of  the  Divine  in- 
terpofal,  than  to  reveal  thefe  truths  to  mankind  ?  and 
E  3  to 


54  Miracles  capaele    of         Parti. 

to  enforce  them  in  fuch  a  manner,  as  may  give  them 
a  fuitable  influence  on  the  heart  and  life.  Of  all  the 
inhabitants  of  the  earth,  man  is  incomparably  the 
nobleft.  Whatever  therefore  regards  the  intereft  of 
the  human  fpecies,  is  a  grander  concern,  than  what 
regards  either  the  inanimate  or  the  brute  creation. 
If  man  was  made,  as  is  doubtlefs  not  impoflible,  for 
an  after  ftate  of  immorality ;  whatever  relates  to 
that  immortal  frate,  or  may  conduce  to  prepare  him 
for  the  fruition  of  it,  mufl  be  immenfely  fuperior 
to  that  which  concerns  merely  the  tranfient  en- 
joyments of  the  prefent  life.  How  fublime  then 
js  the  objecl:  which  religion,  and  religion  only,  exhi- 
bits as  the  ground  of  fupernatural  interpofitions! 
This  object  is  no  other  than  the  intereft  of  man,  a 
reafonable  and  moral  agent,  the  only  being  in  this 
lower  world  which  bears  in  his  foul  the  image  of  his 
Maker ;  not  the  intereft  of  an  individual,  but  of  the 
kind  ;  not  for  a  limited  duration,  but  for  eternity :  an 
object  at  lead  in  one  refpect  adequate  to  the  raa- 
jefty  of  God. 

Does  this  appear  to  the  eflayift  too  much  like  ar- 
guing a  priori,of  which  I  know  he  hath  a  deteflation  ? 
It  is  juft  fuch  an  argument,  as,  prefuppofmg  the  moft 
rational  principles  of  Deifm,  refults  from  thofe  max- 
ims concerning  intelligent  caufes,  and  their  operations, 
which  are  founded  in  general  experience,  and  which 
uniformly  lead  us  to  expect,  that  the  end  will  be  pro- 
portionate to  the  means.  The  Pagans  of  Rome  had 
notions  of  their  divinities  infinitely  inferior  to  the  opi- 
nions concerning  God,  which  in  Chriftian  countries 
are  maintained  even  by  thofe,  who,  for  diftinclion's 

fake 


Se&.    6.         PROOF    FROM    TESTIMONY.  55  ' 

fake,  are  called  Deists.  Yet  fuch  of  the  former  as 
had  anyjuftnefs  of  tafte,  were  offended  with  thofe  po- 
ets, who,  exhibited  the  celeflials  on  flight  occafions, 
and  for  trivial  purpofes,  interfering  in  the  affairs  of 
men-  Why  ?  Becaufe  fuch  an  exhibition  mocked 
all  the  principles  of  probability.  It  had  not  that  veri- 
fimilitude  which  is  abfolutely  neceffary  to  render  fic- 
tion agreeable.  Accordingly  it  is  a  precept,  with  re- 
lation to  the  machinery  of  the  drama,  given  by  one 
who  was  both  a  critic  and  a  poet,  Tljat  a  god  muft  never 
be  introduced,  unlejs  to  accomplijh  fome  important  deftgn 
which  could  not  be  otherwife  effectuated  *.  The  foun- 
dation of  this  rule,  which  is  that  of  my  argument, 
is  therefore  one  of  thofe  indifputable  principles,  which 
are  found  every  where,  among  the  earlieft  refults  of 
experience. 

Thus  it  appears,  that  from  the  dignity  of  the  end, 
there  arifeth  a  peculiar  prefumption  in  favour  of  fuch 
miracles,  as  are  faid  to  have  been  wrought  in  fuppojt 
of  religion. 


SECTION     VI. 

Inquiry  into  the  meaning  and  propriety  of  one  of  Mr 
Humes  favourite  maxims. 

THere  is  a  method   truly   curious,  fuggefted  by 
the  author,  for  extricating  the  mind,  mould  the 
evidence  from   teftimony  be  fo   great,  that   its  falfe- 

hood 
*  Nee  deus  interfit,  niO  dignus  vindice  nodus 

Incident.  Horat. 


56  Miracles  capable  of  Part  I. 

hood  might,  as  he  terms  it,  be  accounted  miraculous. 
In  this  puzzling  cafe,  when  a  man  is  fo  befet  with 
miracles,  that  he  is  under  a  neceffity  of  admitting 
one,  he  mull  always  take  care  it  be  the  fmalleft  ;  for 
it  is  an  axiom  in  this  writers  dialectic,  That  the 
probability  of  the  facl  is  in  the  inverfe  ratio  of  the  quantity 
of  miracle  there  is  in  it.  "  I  weigh,"  fays  he,  M  the  one 
"  miracle  againft  the  other,  and  according  to  the  fupe- 
11  riority  which  I  difcover,  I  pronounce  my  decifion, 
"  and  always  rejecl  the  greater  miracle*." 

Now,  of  this  method,  which  will  no  doubt  be 
thought  by  many  to  be  very  ingenious,  and  which 
appears  to  the  effayift  both  very  momentous  and  very 
perfpicuous,  I  own,  I  am  not  able  to  difcover  either 
the  reafonablenefs  or  the  ufe. 

Firft,  I  cannot  fee  the  reafonablenefs.  '  A  miracle,' 
to  adopt  his  own  definition,  ■  implies  the  tranfgref- 
•  fion,'  or  rather  thefufpenfion,  ■  of  fome  law  of  na- 
«  ture  ;  and  that  either  by  a  particular  volition  of  the 
1  Deity,  or  by  the  interpofal  of  fomeinvifible  agent  +.' 
Now,  as  I  mould  think,  from  the  principles  laid 
down  in  the  preceding  fection,  that  it  would  be  for 
no  trifling  purpofe,  that  the  laws  of  nature  would  be 
fufpended,  and  either  the  Deity  or  an  invifible  agent 
would  interpofe  ;  'tis  on  the  fame  principles,  natural 
to  imagine,  that  the  means,  or  miracle  performed, 
fhould  bear  a  proportion  in  refpecT:  of  dignity  and 
greatnefs,  to  the  end  propofed.  Were  I  therefore  under 
fuch  a  neceffity  as  is  fuppofed  by  Mr  Hume,  of  ad- 
mit ting 
*  p.  i8j.  f  lb.  in  the  note. 


SeCl    6.         PROOF    FROM    TESTIMONY  57 

mitting  the  truth  of  a  miracle,  I  acknowledge,  that 
of  two  contradictory  miracles,  where  all  other  circum- 
ftancesare  equal,  I  mould  think  it  reafonable  to  be- 
lieve the  greater.  I  mail  borrow  an  illuftration  from 
the  author  himfelf.  u  A  miracle,"  he  fays,  "  may 
lt  either  be  cUjcoverable  by  men  or  not.  This  alters 
«•  not  its  nature  and  efTence.  The  railing  of  a  houfe 
"  or  fhip  into  the  air  is  a  vifible  miracle ;  the  raifing 
"  of  a  feather,  when  the  wind  wants  ever  Jo  little  of 
"  a  force  requifite  for  that  purpofe  is  as  real  a  miracle, 
<f  tho'  not  fo  fenfible  with  regard  to  us*."  Surely  if 
any  miracle  may  be  called  little,  the  lafl  mentioned  is 
intitled  to  that  denomination,  not  only  becaufe  it  is 
an  undijcoverable  and  injenj.ble  miracle,  but  becaufe 
the  quantum  of  miraculous  force  requifite,  is,  by  the 
hypothefis,  ever  Jo  little,  or  the  leaft  conceivable. 
Yet  if  it  were  certain,  that  God,  angel,  or  fpirit, 
were,  for  one  of  thofe  purpofes,  to  interpofe  in  fuf- 
pending  the  laws  of  nature  ;  I  believe  mofr  men 
would  join  with  me  in  thinking,  that  it  would  be  ra- 
ther for  the  rainng  of  a  houje  or  fhip  than  for  the  rai- 
ling of  Tijeathcr. 

But  though  the  maxim  laid  down  by  the  author 
were  juft,  I  cannot  difcover  in  what  inftance,  or  by 
what  application,  it  can  be  rendered  of  any  utility. 
Why  r  Becaufe  we  have  no  rule,  whereby  we  can 
judge  of  the  greatnefs  of  miracles.  I  allow,  that  in 
fuch  a  fingular  infrance,  as  that  above  quoted  from 
the  eflay,  we  may  judge  fafely  enough.  But  that  can 
be  of  no  practical  ufe.     In   almoft    every  cafe  that 

will 
*  p.  182.  in  the  note. 


58  Miracles  capable  of  Parti. 

will  occur,  I  may  warrantably  aver,  that  it  will  be 
impofliblefor  the  acuteft  intellect  to  decide,  which 
of  the  two  is  the  greater  miracle.  As  to  the  author, 
I  cannot  find  that  he  has  favoured  us  with  any  light 
in  fo  important  and  fo  critical  a  queftion.  Have  we 
not  then  fome  reafon  to  dread,  that  the  tafk  will  not 
be  lefs  difficult  to  furnifh  us  with  a  meajure,  by  which 
we  can  determine  the  magnitude  of  miracles  ;  than 
to  provide  us  with  a  balance,  by  which  we  can 
afceriain  the  comparative  weight  of  teftimonies  and 
experiences  ? 

If  leaving  the  fpeculations  of  the  eflayift,  we  mall, 
in  order  to  be  allifted  on  this  fubjeft,  recur  to  his  ex- 
ample and  decifions  :  let  us  confider  the  miracle 
which  was  recited  in  the  third  fe£lion,  and  which  he 
declares,  would,  on  the  evidence  of  fuch  teilimony 
as  he  fuppofes,  not  only  be  probable,  but  certain. 
For  my  part,  'tis  not  in  my  power  to  conceive  agreat- 
ter  miracle  than  that  is.  The  whole  univerfe  is  af- 
fecltdby  it  ;  the  earth,  the  fun,  the  moon,  the  ftars. 
The  mod  invariable  laws  of  nature  with  which  we 
are  accquainted,  even  thofe  which  regulate  the  mo- 
tions of  the  heavenly  bodies,  and  difpenfe  darkncfs 
and  light  to  worMs  are  violated.  I  appeal  to 
the  author  himfelf,  whether  it  could  be  called  a  great- 
er, or  even  fo  great  a  miracle,  that  all  the  writers  at 
that  time,  or  even  all  mankind,  had  been  feized 
with  a  new  fpecies  of  epidemical  delirium,  which  had 
given  rife  to  this  ftrange  illufion.  But  in  this  the  au- 
thor is  remarkably  unfortunate,  that  the  principles  by 
which  he  in   fact  regulates   his  judgment  and  belief, 

are 


Sect.  6.  PROOF    FROM      TESTIMONY. 


59 


are  often  the  reverfe  of  thofe  which  he  endeavours  to 
eftablifh  in   his  theory. 

Shall  I  hazard  a  conjecture  ?  It  is,  that  the 
word  miracle,  as  thus  ufed  by  the  author,  is  ufed  in 
a  vague  and  improper  fenfe,  as  a  fynonymous  term 
for  improbable  ;  and  that  believing  the  kfs,  and  reject- 
ing the  greater  miracle,  denote  (Imply  believing  what 
is  leafi,  and  rejecting  what  is  mrJl  improbable  ;  or  ftili 
more  explicitly  believing  what  we  think  moft  worthy 
sf  belief,  and  rejecting  what  we  think  leaft  worthy.  I 
am  aware,  on  a  fecond  perufal  of  the  author's  words, 
that  my  talent  in  guefling  may  be  juftly  queftioned. 
He  hath  in  effect  told  us  himfelf  what  he  means. 
41  When  any  one,"  fays  he,  "  tells  me,  that  he  faw  a 
«  dead  man  reftored  to  life,  I  immediately  confider 
"  with  myfelf,  whether  it  be  more  probable,  that  this 
44  perfon  mould  either  deceive  or  be  deceived,  or  that 
44  the  fact  he  relates,  fhould  really  have  happened. 
44  I  weigh  the  one  miracle  againft  the  other;  and 
"  according  to  the  fuperiority  which  I  difcover,  I 
44  pronounce  my  decifion,  and  always  reject  the  greater 
"miracle.  If  the  faMehood  of  his  teftimony  would 
u  be  more  miraculous  than  the  event  which  he  relates ; 
"then,  and  not  till  then,  can  he  pretend  to  command 
44  my  belief  or  opinion  *."  At  firft  indeed  one  is 
ready  to  exclaim,  What  a  ftrange  revolution  is  here  ! 
The  belief  of  miracles  then,  even  by  Mr  Hume's 
account,  is  abfolutely  inevitable.  Miracles  them- 
felves  too,  fo  far  from  being  impoflible,  or  even 
extraordinary,  are  the  commoneft  things  in  nature ; 

fo 
t  183. 


to  Miracles  capable  of  Part  I. 

fo  common,  that  when  any  miraculous  fa  ft  is  attefted 
to  us,  we  are  equally  under  a  neceffity  of  believing^ 
miracle,  whether  we  believe  the  fa  ft,  or  deny  it. 
The  whole  difference  between  the  effayift  and  us,  is 
at  length  reduced  to  this  fingle  point,  Whether 
greater  or  fmaller  miracles  are  intitled  to  the  prefer- 
ence. This  myftery  however  vanifhes  on  a  nearer 
infpeftion.  The  ftyle,  we  find,  is  figurative,  and 
the  author  is  all  the  while  amufing  both  his  readers  and 
himfelf  with  an  unufual  application  of  a  familiar  term. 
What  is  called  the  weighing  of  probabilities  in  one 
fentence,  is  the  weighing  of  miracles  in  the  next. 
If  it  were  afked,  For  what  reafon  did  not  Mr  Hume 
exprefs  his  fentiment  in  ordinary  and  proper  wrords? 
I  could  only  anfwer,  I  know  no  reafon  but  one,  and 
that  is,  To  give  the  appearance  of  novelty  and  depth 
to  one  of  thofe  very  harmlefs  propofitions,  which  by 
philofophers  are  called  identical,  andwhich,  to  fay  the 
truth,  need  fome  difguife,  to  make  them  pafs  upon 
the  world  with  tolerable  decency. 

What  then  fhall  be  faid  of  the  conclufion  which 
he  gives  as  the  fum  and  quinteffence  of  the  firft  part 
of  the  effay  ?  The  beft  thing  for  aught  I  know,  that 
can  be  faid,  is,  that  it  contains  a  moil  certain  truth, 
tho'  at  the  fame  time  the  leaft  fignificant,  that  ever 
perhaps  was  ufhered  into  the  world  with  fo  much 
folemnity.  In  order,  therefore,  to  make  plainer 
EngliftJ  of  his  plain  conjequence,  let  us  only  change  the 
word  miraculous,  as  applyed  to  the  falfehood  of  human 
testimony,  into  improbable,  which  in  this  paffage  is 
entirely  equivalent,  and  obferve  the'  effeft   produced 

by 


5e£l.  6.  PROOF    FROM    TESTIMONY.  6l 

by  this  elucidation.  "The  plain  coafequencc 
"  is,  and  'tis  a  general  maxim,  worthy  of  mr  ct- 
4f  tention,  That  no    testimony    is    sufficient 

"TO  ESTABLISH  A  MIRACLE;  UNLESS  Tlili 
"TESTIMONY  BE  OF  SUCH  A  KIND,  THAT  ITS 
*'  FALSEHOOD  WOULD  BE  MORE  IMPROBABLE, 
"  THAN    THE  FACT  WHICH  IT     ENDEAVOURS    TO 

««  establish  *."  If  the  reader  thinks  himfclf 
inftru&ed  by  this  difcovery,  I  fhould  be  loth  to  envy 
him  the  pleafure  he  may  derive  from  it. 


F  A    DIS- 

f  p;  itz. 


A 
DISSERTATION 

o    N 

MIRACLES. 

PART      II. 

The  miracles  on  which  the  belief  of  Chriitianity  is 
founded,  are  fufficiently  attefted. 

fr   ♦,  1*l    »     ♦     *,    *,  ,t,  ,ti  it,  i*r  ,*,  TV  t*r  ■*!  ■+* 

SECTION      I. 

There  is  no  prefumption,  arifmg  from  human  nature, 
againft  the  miracles  Jaid  to  have  been  wrought  in 
proof  of  Chrijl'umity. 

FRom  what  hath  been  evinced  in  the  fourth  and  fifth 
fecYions  of  the  former  part,  with  regard  to  religion 
in  general,  two  corollaries  are  clearly  deducible  in  fa- 
vour of  Chriitianity.  One  is,  That  the  prefumption 
arifing  from  the  dignity  of  the  end,  to  fay  the  leaft  of 
it,  can  in  no  religion  be  pleaded  with  greater  advan- 
tage, than  in  the  Chriftian.  The  other  is,  That  the 
prefumption  arifing  from  the  religious  affedtion,  in- 
iiead  of  weakening,  corroborates  the  evidence  of  the 
gofpel.  The  faith  of  Jefus  was  promulgated,  and 
gained  ground,  not  with  the  alMance,  but  in  de- 
fiance, of  all  the  religious  zeal  and  prejudices  of  the 
times. 


In 


Seel,  i.         The  Miraces  of,  ffc.  63 

In  order  to  invalidate  the  fecond  corollary,  it  will 
poffibly  be  urged,  that  profelytes  to  a  new  religion, 
may  be  gained  at  firft  \  either  by  addrefs  and  elo- 
quence, or  by  the  appearances  of  uncommon  fandity, 
and  rapturous  fervours  of  devotion  ;  that  if  once 
people  have  commenced  profelytes,  the  tranfition  to 
enthuflafm  is  almoft  unavoidable;  and  that  enthu- 
fiafm  will  fully  account  for  the  utmoft  pitch  both  of 
credulity  and  falfenefs. 

Admitting  that  a  few  converts  might  be  made  by 
the  aforefaid  art?,  it  is  fubverfive  of  all  the  laws  jof 
probability,  to  imagine,  that  the  ftrongeii  prepof- 
fefTions,  fortified  with  that  vehement  abhorence 
which  contradiction  in  religious  principles  rarely  fails 
to  excite,  mould  be  fo  eafily  vanquimed  in  multi- 
tudes. Befides,  the  very  pretext  of  fupporting  the 
doctrine  by  miracles,  if  a  falfe  pretext,  would  of  ne- 
cefiity  do  unfpeakable  hurt  to  the  caufe.  The  pre- 
tence of  miracles  will  quickly  attract  the  attention  of 
all  to  whom  the  new  doctrine  is  published.  The 
influence  which  addrefs  and  eloquence,  appearances 
of  fandlity  and  fervours  of  devotion,  would  otherwise 
have  had,  however  great,  will  be  fuperfccled  by  the 
confederation  of  what  is  infinitely  more  ftriking  and 
decifive.  The  miracles  will  therefore  firfl:  be  can- 
vaffed,  and  canvafled  with  a  temper  of  mind  the 
mofl:  unfavourable  to  conviclion.  Tis  not  folelv  on 
the  teflimony  of  the  evangelifts  that  Chriflians  be- 
lieve the  gofpel,  tho!  that  teflimony  appears  in  all 
refpecls  fuch  as  merits  the  highefl  regard  ;  but  it  is 
on  the  fuccefs  of  the  gofpel  ;  it  is  on  the  teftimohv, 
as  we  may  jufty  call  it,  of  the  numberlefs   profelytes 

that 


64  The  Miracles  of  the         Part  II. 

that  were  made  to  a  religon,  oppofing  all  the  religi- 
ous profeflions  then  in  the  world,  and  appealing,  for 
the  fatisfaclion  of  every  body,  to  the  vifible  and 
miraculous  interpofition  of  Heaven  in  its  favour. 
The  witnefles  confidered  in  this  light,  and  in  this 
light  they  ought  to  be  confidered,  will  be  found 
more  than  ■  a  fufficient  number  :'  and  tho'  perhaps 
there  were  few  of  them,  what  the  author  would  deno- 
minate ■  men  of  education  and  learning  ;'yet,  which 
is  more  efilntial,  they  were  generally  men  of  good 
fenfe,  and  knowledge  enough  to  fecure  them  againrfc 
all  delufion,  as  to  thofe  plain  facts  for  which  they 
gave  their  teftimony ;  men  who,  ^in  the  common 
acceptation  of  the  words)  neither  did,  nor  could 
derive  to  themfelves  either  intereft  or  honour  by  their 
alterations,  but  did  thereby,  on  the  contrary,  evi- 
dently abandon  all  hopes  of  both. 

It  deferves  alfo  to  be  remembered,  that  there  is 
here  no  contradictory  teftimony,  notwithftanding 
that  both  the  founder  of  our  religion,  and  his  adhe- 
rents, were  from  the  firft  furrounded  by  inveterate 
enemies,  who  never  *  eiteemed  the  matter  too  in- 
*  cor.fiderable  to  deferve  their  attention  or  regard  ;' 
and  who,  as  they  could  not  want  the  means,  gave 
evident  proofs  that  they  wanted  not  the  inclination 
to  detect  the  fraud,  if  there  had  been  any  fraud  to  be 
detected.  They  were  jealous  of  their  own  reputa- 
tion and  authority,  and  forefaw  but  too  clearly, 
that  the  fuccefs  of  Jefus  would  give  a  fatal  blow  to 
both.  As  to  the  teftiraonies  themfelves,  we  may 
permit  the  author  to  try  them  by   his   own  rules*. 

There 
*  p.  17S. 


Sect,  i.       Gospel  fully  attested.  65 

There  is  here  no  oppofition  of  teftimony  ;  there  is 
no  apparent  ground  of  fufpicion  from  the  character 
of  the  witneiTes  ;  there  is  no  intereft  which  they  could 
have  in  impofing  on  the  world  ;  there  is  not  a  fmall 
number  of  witneiTes,  they  are  innumerable.  Do 
the  hiftorians  of  our  Lord  deliver  their  teftimony 
with  doubt  and  hefitation  ?  Do  they  fall  into  the  op- 
pofite  extreme  of  ufing  too  violent  afTeverations  ?  So 
far  from  both,  that  the  moft  amazing  inftances  of 
divine  power,  and  the  moft  interesting  events,  are 
related  without  any  cenfure  or  reflection  of  the  wri- 
ters on  perfons,  parties,  actions,  or  opinions  ;  with 
fuch  an  unparallelled  and  unaffected  fimplicity,  as 
demonftrates,  that  thev  were  neither  themfelves  ani- 
mated by  pailion  like  enthufiafts,  nor  had  any  defign 
of  working  on  the  paftions  of  their  readers.  The 
greateft  miracles  are  recorded,  with  as  little  appear- 
ance either  of  doubt  or  wonder  in  the  writer,  and 
with  as  little  fufpicion  of  the  reader's  incredulity,  as 
the  moft  ordinary  incidents  :  A  manner  as  unlike 
that  of  impoftors  as  of  enthufiafts  ;  a  manner  in  which 
thofe  writers  are  altogether  fingular  ;  and  I  will  add  a 
manner  which  can  on  no  fuppofion  be  tolerably  ac- 
counted for,  but  that  of  the  truth,  and  not  of  the  truth 
only,  but  of  the  notoriety,  of  the  events  which  they  re- 
lated. They  fpoke  like  people,  who  had  themfelves 
been  long  familiarized  to  fuch  acts  of  omnipotence  and 
grace.  They  fpoke  like  people,  who  knew  that  ma- 
ny of  the  moft  marvellous  actions  they  related,  had 
been  fo  publicly  performed,  and  in  the  prefence  of 
multitudes  alive  at  ths  time  of  their  writing,  as  to  be 
uncontrovertible,  and  as  in  fact  not  to  have  been  con- 
F  3  troverted 


66  The  Miracles  of  the       Part  II. 

verted,  even  by  their  bittereft  foes.  They  could  bold- 
ly appeal  on  this  head  to  their  enemies.  A  man,  fay 
they,  fpaking  of  their  mafter*,  approved  of  God  among 
you,  by  miracles  and  wonders  andftgns,  which  God  did  by 
him  in  the  midjl  of  you,  as  YE  yourselves  also 
know  The  objections  of  Chrift's  perfecutors  a- 
gainft  his  doctrine,  thofe  objections  alfo  which  regard 
the  nature  of  his  miracles,  are,  together  with  his  an- 
fwers,  faithfully  recorded  by  the  facred  hiftorians;  'tis 
ftrange,  if  the  occafion  had  been  given,  that  we  have 
not  the  remoteft  hint  of  any  objections  againft  the 
reality  of  his  miracles,  and  a  confutation  of  thofe  ob- 
jections. 

I3ut  palling  the  manner  in  which  the  full 
profelytes  may  be  gained  to  a  new  religion,  and 
fuppofing  fome  actually  gained,  no  matter  how  to 
the  faith  of  Jefus  ;  can  it  be  eafily  accounted  for, 
that,  even  with  the  help  of  thofe  early  converts,  this 
religion  fhould  have  been  propagated  in  the  world, 
on  the  falfe  pretence  of  miracles  ?  Nothing  more 
eafily,  fays  the  author.  Thofe  original  propagators 
of  the  gofpel  have  been  deceived  themfelves ;  for  "  a 
"  religionift  may  be  an  enthitjiaji,  and  imagine  he  fees 
ft  what  has  no  reality  t." 

Were  this  admitted,  it  would  not  in  the  prefent 
cafe,  remove  the  difficulty.  He  muft  not  only 
himfelf  imagine  he  fees  what  has  no  reality,  he 
muft  make  every  body  prefent,  thofe  who  are  no  en- 
thufiafts,  nor  even  friends,  nay  he  muft  make  enemies 
alfo  imagine  they  fee  the  fame  thing  which  he  ima- 
gines 

*  A£«  ii.  22»  f  p.  185. 


Seel.  r.       Gospel  fully  attested.  67 

gines  he   fees ;   for  the  miracles  of  Jefus   were  ao 
acknowledged  by  thofe  who  perfecuted  him. 

That  an  enthufiajl  is  very  liable  to  be  impofed  on, 
m  whatever  favours  the  particular  fpecies  of  enthu- 
fiafm,  with  which  he  is  affected,  none,  who  knows 
any  thing  of  the  human  heart,  will  deny.  But 
ft'ill  this  frailty  hath  its  limits.  For  my  own  parf, 
I  cannot  find  examples  of  any,  even  among  enthu- 
fiafts,  (unlefs  to  the  conviction  of  every  body  they 
were  diffracted)  who  did  not  fee  and  hear  in  the  fame 
manner  as  other  people.  Many  of  this  tribe  have 
miftaken  the  reveries  of  a  heated  imagination,  for  the 
communications  of  the  Divine  Spirit,  who  never,  in, 
one  fingle  inftance,  miftook  the  operations  of  their 
external  fenfes.  Without  marking  this  difference, 
we  mould  make  no  distinction  between  the  enthufiafils 
character  and  the  frantic,  which  are  in  themfelves 
evidently  diftinct.  How  iLall  we  then  account  from 
cnthujiafnty  for  the  teftimony  given  by  the  apoftles, 
concerning  the  refurrection  of  their  matter,  and  his 
afcenfion  into  heaven,  not  to  mention  innumerable 
other  facts  ?  In  thefe  it  was  impoffible  that  any,  who 
in  the  ufe  of  their  reafon  were  but  one  remove  from 
Bedlamites,  mould  have  been  deceived.  Yet,  in  the 
prefent  cafe,  the  unbeliever  muft  even  fay  more  than 
this,  and,  accumulating  abfurdity  upon  abfurdity, 
muft  affirm,  that  the  apoftles  were  deceived  as  to  the 
refurrection  and  afcenfion  of  their  matter,  notwith- 
ftanding  that  they  themfelves  had  concerted  the 
plan    of    (baling    his    body,    and    concealing    it. 

But  this  is  not  the  only  refource  of  the  infidel.  If 
he  is  driven  from  this  ftrong  hold,  he  can  take  refuge 

in 


68  The  Miracles  of  thf        Part  II. 

in  another.  Admit  the  apoftles  were  not  deceived 
themfelves,  they  may  neverthelefs  have  been,  thro' 
mere  devotion  and  benevolence,  incited  to  deceive  the 
reft  of  mankind.  The  reiigionift,  rejoins  the  author, 
"  may  know  his  narration  to  be  falie,  and  yet  per- 
"  fevere  in  it,  with  the  bed  intentions  in  the  world, 
"  for  the  fake  of  promoting  fo  holy  a  caufe  *." 

Our  religion,  to  ufe  its  own  nervous  language, 
teacheth  us  f,  that  we  ought  not  to  lie,  or  /peak 
wickedly,  not  even/sr  God;  that  we  ought  not  to  accept 
his  perfon  in  judgment,  or  talk,  or  act  deceitfully 
for  him.  But  fo  very  little,  it  muft  be  owned,  has  this 
fentiment  been  attended  to,  even  in  the  Chriftian 
world,  that  one  would  almoft  think,  it  contained  a 
ftrain  of  virtue  too  fublime  for  the  apprehenfion  of 
the  multitude.  'Tis  therefore  a  fact  not  to  be  quef- 
tioned,  that  little  pious  frauds,  as  they  are  abfurdly, 
not  to  fay  impioufly,  called,  have  been  often  prac- 
tifed  by  ignorant  zealots  in  fupport  of  a  caufe,  which 
they  firmly  believed  to  be  both  true  and  holy.  But 
in  all  fuch  cafes  the  truth  and  holinefs  of  the  caufe 
are  wholly  independent  of  thofe  artifices.  A  perfon 
may  be  perfuaded  of  the  former,  who  is  too  ciear- 
fighted  to  be  deceived  by  the  latter  :  for  even  a  full 
conviction  of  rhe  truth  of  the,  caufe  is  not,  in  the 
lead,  inconfiftent  with  either  the  confcioufnefs,  or 
the  detection  of  the  frauds  ufed  in  fupport  of  it.  In 
the  Romifh  church,  for  example,  there  are  many 
zealous  and  orthodox  believers,  who  are  neverthelefs 
incapable  of  being  impofed  on  by  the  lying  wonders, 
which  fome  of  their  clergy  have  exhibited.     The  cir- 

cumftances 
*  p.  185.  f  Job.  xiii.  7>  8. 


Seer,  i.       Gospel  fully  attested.  69 

cumftances  of  the  apoftles  were  widely  different  from 
the  circumftances,  either  of  thofe  believers,  or  ef 
their  clergy.  Some  of  the  miraculous  events  which 
the  apoftles  attefted,  were  not  only  the  evidences,  but 
the  diflinguilhing  doclrines  of  the  religion  which  they 
taught.  There  is  therefore  in  their  cafe  an  abfolute 
inconfiftency  betwix  a  conviction  of  the  truth  of  the 
caufe,  and  the  confcioufnefs  of  the  frauds  ufed  in 
fupport  of  it.  Thole  frauds  themfelves,  if  I  may  fo 
exprefs  my  felf,  conmtuted  the  very  efTence  of  the 
caufe.  \Vh2t  were  the  tenets,  by  which  they  were 
diftinguilhed,  in  their  religious  fyftem,  particularly 
from  the  Pharifees,  who  owned  not  only  the  unity 
and  perfections  of  the  Godhead,  the  exigence  of  an- 
gels and  demons,  but  the  general  refurrection,  and 
future  ftate  of  rewards  and  punifhments?  Were  net 
thefe  their  peculiar  tenets,  That   *  Jefus,  whom  the 

*  Jews  and  Romans  joined   in  crucifying  without  the 

*  gates  of  Jerufalem,  had  fuffered  that  ignominious 
«  death,  to  make  atonement  for  the  fms  of  men  *  ? 
«  that,  in  teftimony  of  this,  and  of  the  divine 
'  acceptance,  God  hath  raifed  him  from  the  dead  r  that 
1  he  had  exalted  him  to  his  own  right  hand,  to  be  a 
'  prince  and  a  faviour,  to  give  repentance  to  the  peo- 

*  pie,  and  the  remiflion  of  their  fins  +r  that  he  is 
«  now  our  advocate  with    the  father  J?  that  he  will 

*  defcend  from  heaven  at  the  laft  day,  to  judge  the 
■  world  in  righteoufnefs  §,  and  to  receive  his  faithful 
«  difciples  into  heaven,  to  be  forever  with  himfelf  ||r' 
Thefe   fundamental  articles    of  their  fyftem,    they 

muft 
*  Rom.  v.  6.  &c.  |  Ads  ii.  $z.  &c.  v.  30.  &c.  x.  40. 

&c.  t  I  John  ii.  1.  §  A£*x.  42.     xvii.  31, 

i]  John  xiv.  3. 


70  The  Miraces  of  the  Part  II. 

muft  have  known,  deferved  no  better  appellation  than 
a  firing  of  lies,  it  we  fuppofe  them  liars  in  the  tefti- 
mony  they  gave  of  the  refurreclion  and  afcen- 
fion  of  their  mafter.  If,  agreeably  to  the  Jewifh 
hypothefis,  they  had,  in  a  moll  wonderful  and 
daring  manner,  ftole  by  night  the  corpfe  from  the  fe- 
pulchre,  that  on  the  falfc  report  of  his  refurreetion, 
they  might  found  the  ftupendous  fabrick  they  had  pro- 
jected among  themfelves,  how  was  it  poflible  they 
ihould  conceive  the  caufe  to  be  either  true  or  holy  ? 
They  muft  have  known,  that  in  thofe  cardinal  points, 
on  which  all  -depends,  they  were  falie  witneftes  con- 
cerning God,  wilful  corrupters  of  the  religion  of  their 
country,  and  public,  though  indeed  difmterefted  in- 
cendiaries, whitherfoever  they  went.  They  could 
not  therefore  enjoy  even  that  poor  folace,  ■  that  the 
'  end  will  fanclify  the  means:'  a  folace  with  which 
the  monk  or  anchoret  filences  the  remoftrances  of  his 
confidence,  when  in  defence  of  a  religion  which  he  re- 
gards as  certain,  he,  by  fome  pitiful  juggler-trick, 
hnpofem  on  the  credulity  of  the  rabble.  On  the 
contrary,  the  whole  fcheme  of  the  apoftles  muft  have 
been,  and  not  only  muft  have  been,  but  muft  have  ap- 
peared to  themfelves,  a  moft  audacious  freedom  with 
their  Maker,  a  villainous  impofition  on  the  world, 
and  I  will  acid,  a  moft  fooliih  and  ridiculous  project 
of  heaping  ruin  and  difgrace  upon  themfelves,  with- 
out the  profpecl:  of  any  compenfation  in  the  prefent 
life,  or  reverfion  in  the  future. 

Once  more,  can  we  account  for  fo    extraordinary 
a  phenomenon,    bv  attributing  it  to  that  moft  power- 
ful 


Se6l.  i-       Gospel  fully  Attested,  71 

ful  of  all  motives,  as  the  author  thinks  it  *,  «  an 
"  ambition  to  attain  fo  fublime  a  character,  as  that 
u  of  a  miflionary,  a  prophet,  an  ambafTador  from 
w  heaven  r" 

Not  to  mention,  that  fuch  a  towering  ambition 
was  but  ill  adapted  to  the  mean  rank,  poor  education, 
and  habitual  circumftances,  of  fuch  men  as  the  Apo- 
ftles  moftly  had  been  ;  a  defire  of  that  kind,  what- 
ever wonders  it  may  effectuate  when  fupported  by 
enthufiafm,  and  faith,  and  zeal,  muft  foon  have  been 
crufhed  by  the  outward,  and  to  human  appearance 
infurmountable  difficulties  and  diftrefles  they  had  to 
encounter ;  when  quite  unfupported  from  within  by 
either  faith,  or  hope,  or  the  teflimony  of  a  good 
confeience ;  rather,  I  mould  have  faid,  when  they 
themfelves  were  haunted  from  within  by  a  confei- 
oufnefs  of  the  blacked  guilt,  impiety,  and  bafenefs. 
Strange  indeed  it  muft  be  owned  without  a  parrallel 
that  in  fuch  a  caufe,  and  in  fuch  circumftances,  not 
only  one,  but  all,  mould  have  the  refolution  to  per- 
fevere  to  the  laft,  in  fpite  of  infamy  and  torture;  and 
that  no  one  among  fo  many  confederates;  mould  be 
induced  to  betray  the  dreadful  fecret. 

Thus  it  appears,  that  no  addrefsm  the  founder 
of  our  religion,  that  no  enthufiajlic  credulity,  no  pious 
frauds,  no  ambitious  views  in  the  first  converts, 
will  account  for  its  propagation  on  the  plea  of  mira- 
cles, if  falfe  ;  and  that  confequently  there  is  no  pre- 
emption arifing  from  human  nature  againft  the  mira- 
cles faid  to  have  been  wrought  in  proof  of  Christiani- 
SECT. 
*  p.  200. 


fz  The  Miracles  of  the         Part  II. 


S  E  C  T  1,0  N.     II. 

There  is  no  prefumption  anftng  from  the  hi/lory  of  man- 
kin d,  againjl  the  miracles  Jaid  to  have  been  wrought 
in  proof  of  Chrijlianity . 

IN  the  foregoing  fection,  I  reafoned  only  from  the 
knowledge  that  experience  affords  us  of  human  na- 
ture, and  of  the  motives  by  which  men  are  influenced 
in  their  conduct.  I  come  now  to  the  examination 
of  facts,  that  I  may  know  whether  the  hiftory  of  man- 
Kind  will   invalidate  or  corroborate   my   reafonings. 

THE  eflayift  is  confident,  that  all  the  evidence 
refulting  hence  is  on  his  fide.  Nay  fo  unqueftionable 
a  truth  does  this  appear  to  him,  that  he  never  attempts 
to  prove  it  :  he  always  prefuppofeth  it,  as  a  point 
univerfally  acknowledged.  •  Men  in  all  ages,'  we 
learn   from    a    paffage    already  quoted,  '  have  been 

•  much  impofed  on,  by  ridiculous  (lories  of  miracles 
'  afcribed  to  new  fyftems  of  religion  *  .'  Again  he 
afierts,  that  *  the  violations  of  truth  are  more  com- 
4  mon  in  the  teftimony  concerning  miracles,  than 
'  in    that   concerning    any    other    religious   matter 

*  of  fact  t.'  Thefc  aflertions,  however,  tho'  ufed 
for  the  fame  purpofe,  the  attentive  reader  will  ob- 
ferve,  are  far  from  conveying  the  fame  fenfe,  or  be- 
ing of  equal  weight  in  the  argument.  The  difference 
hath  been  marked  in  the  fourth  fection  of  the  firft 
part  of  this  tract  c  The  oracular  predictions  among 
the  ancient  Pagans,  and  the  pretended  wonders  per- 
formed 

*  p.  204.  in  the  note.  f  p.  aoj  in  the  Bote. 


Sect.  2.      Gospel  fully  Attested.  73 

formed  by  capuchins  and  friars,  by  itinerant  or  (tati- 
onary  teachers  among  the  Roman  Catholics,  the  au- 
thor will  doubtlefs  reckon  among  religious  miracles; 
but  he  can  with  no  propriety  denominate  them,  mi- 
racles afcribed  to  a  new  fyflem  of  religion  t.  Now, 
'tis  with  thofe  of  the  clafs  laft  mentioned,  and  with 
thofe  only,  that  I  am  concerned ;  for  'tis  only  to  them 
that  the  miracles  wrought  in  proof  of  chriftianity  bear 
any  analogy. 

I  fhall  then  examine  impartially  this  bold  affertion, 

That  i  men  in  all  ages  have  been  much  impofed  on, 

G  '  by 

f  Should  the  author  infill,  that  fuch  miracles  are  neverthelefs 
meant  to  eftablifh,  if  not  a  new  fyflem,  at  leafl  fome  neiv  point  of 
religion  ;  that  thofe  which  are  wrought  in  Spain,  for  example, 
are  not  intended  as  proofs  of  the  gofpel,  hut  as  proofs  of  the  effica- 
cy of  a  particular  crucifix  or  relic  ;  which  is  always  a  new  point,  or 
at  leaft  not  univerfally  received  :  I  mufl  beg  the  reader  will 
confider,  what  is  the  meaning  of  this  expreflion,  a  neio  point  of  re- 
ligion. It  is  not  a  ncivfyfiem,  'tis  not  even  a  neiv  declrine.  We 
know,  that  one  article  of  faith  in  the  church  of  Rome  is,  that  the 
images  and  relics  of  faints  ought  to  he  worfhipped.  We  know 
alfo,  that  in  proof  of  this  article,  'tis  one  of  their  principal  argu- 
ments, that  miracles  are  wrought  by  means  of  fuch  relics  and  i- 
mages.  We  know  further,  that  that  church  never  attempted  to 
enumerate  her  relics  and  other  trumpery,  and  thus  to  afcertain 
the  individual  objects  of  the  adoration  of  her  votaries.  The  pro- 
ducing therefore  a  neiv  relic,  image  or  crucifix,  as  an  objecl  of  wor- 
fhip,  implies  not  the  fmalleft  deviation  from  the  faith  efiablijked  ;  at 
the  fame  time  the  opinion,  that  miracles  are  performed  by  means 
of  fuch  relic,  image,  or  crucifix,  proves,  in  the  minds  of  the 
people,  for  the  reafon  aSigned,  a  very  flrong  confirmation  of  the 
faith  efiablijhed.  All  fuch  miracles  therefore  mud  be  confidered, 
as  wrought  in  fupport  of  the  received  fuperflition,  and  accordingly 
are  always  favoured  by  the  popular  prejudices. 


74  The  Miracles  of  the       Part  II. 

'  by  ridiculous  (lories  of  miracles  afcribed  to  new  fyf- 
tems  of  religion.'  For  my  part,  I  am  fully  fatisfied, 
that  there  is  not  the  fhadow  of  truth  in  it  :  and  I  am 
utterly  at  a  lofs  to  conceive  what  could  induce  an  author 
fo  well  verfed  in  the  annals  both  of  ancient  and  mo- 
dern times  as  Mr  Hume,  in  fuch  a  pofitive  manner  to 
advance  it.  I  believe  it  will  require  no  elaborate  dif- 
quifition  to  evince,  that  thefe  two,  Judaism  and 
Christanity,  are  of  all  that  have  fubfifled,  or  now 
fubfifl  in  the  world,  the  only  religions,  which  claim 
to  have  been  attended  in  their  fird  publication  with  the 
•evidence  of  miracles.  It  deferves  alfo  to  be  remarked, 
that  it  is  more  in  conformity  to  common  language,  and 
incidental  diffin&ions  which  have  arifen,  than  to  frricl; 
propriety,  that  I  call  Judaifm  and  Chriftanity,  two 
religions.  'Tistrue,  the  Jewifh  creed,  in  the  days  of 
our  Saviour,  having  been  corrupted  by  rabbinical  tra- 
ditions, flood  in  many  refpecls,  and  at  this  day  (lands 
in  direct  oppofnion  to  the  Gofpel.  But  it  is  not  in 
this  acceptation  that  I  ufe  the  word  Judaifm.  Such  a 
creed,  I  am  fenfible,  we  can  no  more  denominate  the 
doctrine  of  the  Old  Tejiament,  than  we  can  denominate 
the  creed  of  Pope  Pius  the  doctrine  of  the  New.  And 
-truly  the  fate  which  both  inftitutions,  that  of  Mifes, 
and  that  of  ChriJ}>  have  met  with  among  men,  hath 
been  in  many  refpects  extremely  ilmilar.  But 
when,  on  the  contrary,  we  confider  the  religion  of 
the  Jews,  not  as  the  fyftem  of  faith  and  practice, 
which  prefently  obtains,  or  heretofore  hath  obtained 
among  that  people  ;  but  folely  as  the  religion  that  is 
.revealed  in  the  law  and  the  prophets,  we  muft  acknow- 
ledge, that  in  this  inftitution  are  contained  the  rudi- 
ments 


Sect,  i.       GosrEL  fully  Attested.  75 

ments  of  the  gofpel.  The  fame  great  plan  carried  on 
by  the  Divine  Providence,  for  the  recovery  and  final 
happinefs  of  mankind,  is  the  fubject  of  both  difpen- 
fations.  They  are  by  confequence  clofely  connected. 
In  the  former  we  are  acquainted  with  the  occafion  and 
rife,  in  the  latter  more  fully  with  the  progrefs  and  com~ 
pletion  of  this  benign  fcheme.  'Tis  for  this  reafon 
that  the  fcriptures  of  the  Old  Tefiament,  which  alone 
contain  the  authentic  religion  of  the  synagogue, 
have  ever  been  acknowledged  in  the  church,  an  ef- 
fential  part  of  the  gofpel-revehticn.  The  apoftles  and 
evangelifts  in  every  part  of  their  writings,  prefuppofe 
the  truth  of  the  Mofaic  economy,  and  often  found 
both  their  doctrine  and  arguments  upon  it.  'Tis 
therefore,  I  affirm,  only  in  proof  of  this  one  feries  of 
revelations,  that  the  aid  of  miracles  hath  with  fuccefs 
been  pretended  to. 

Can  the  Pagan  religion,  can,  I  fhould  rather 
fay,  any  of  the  numberlefs  religions  (for  they  are 
totally  diftinct)  known  by  the  common  name  of 
Pagan,  produce  any  claim  of  this  kind  that  will  me- 
rit our  attention  ?  If  the  author  knows  of  any,  I  with 
he  had  mentioned  it ;  for  in  all  antiquity,  as  far  as 
my  acquaintance  with  it  reacheth,  I  can  recollect  no 
fuch  claim.  However,  that  I  may  not,  on  the  one 
hand,  appear  to  pafs  the  matter  too  (lightly  ;  or,  on 
the  other,  lofe  myfelf,  as  Mr  Hume  expreffes  it,  in 
too  wide  a  field  ;  I  (hall  briefly  confider,  whether 
the  ancient  religions  of  Greece  or  Rome  (which  of  all 
the  fpecies  of  heathenim  fuperflition  are  on  many  ac- 
counts the  moit  remarkable)  can  prefent  a  claim  of 
tijis  nature.     Will  it  be  faid,  that  that   monftrous 

heap 


6  The  Miracles  of  the       Part  II. 


heap  of  fables  we  find  in  ancient  bards,  relating  to 
the  genealogy,  productions,  amours,and  atchievements, 
of  the  gods,  are  the  miracles  on  which  Greek  and 
Roman  Paganifm  claims  to  be  founded  ? 

If  one  mould  talk  in  this  manner,  I  muft  remind 
him,  firft,  that  thefe  are  by  no  means  exhibited  as 
evidences,  but  as  the  theology  itfelf;  the  poets 
always  ufing  the  fame  affirmative  ftyle  concerning 
what  palled  in  heaven,  in  hell,  and  in  the  ocean, 
where  men  could  not  be  fpeclators,  as  concerning 
what  palled  upon  the  earth  :  fecondly,  that  all  thofe 
mythological  tales  are  confefledly  recorded  m3ny  cen- 
turies after  they  are  fuppofed  to  have  happened  ;  no 
voucher,  noteftimony,  nothing  that  can  dcferve  the 
name  of  evidence  having  been  produced,  or  even  al- 
ledged,  in  proof  of  them  ;  thirdly ',  that  the  intention 
of  the  writers  Teems  to  be  folely  the  amufement,  not 
the  conviction  of  their  readers  ;  that  accordingly  no 
writer  fcruples  to  model  the  mythology  to  his  par- 
ticular tafte,  or  rather  caprice ;  but  confidering  thisas 
a  province  fubject  to  the  laws  of  ParnafTus,  all  agree 
in  arrogating  here  the  immemorial  privilege  of  poets, 
to  fay  and  feign,  unquestioned,  what  they  pleafe  ;  and 
fourthly,  that  at  leaft  feveral  of  their  narrations  are  al- 
legorical, and  as  plainly  intended  to  convey  fome 
physical  or  moral  inftruclion,  as  any  of  the  apologues 
of  Miop.  But  to  have  faid  even  thus  much  in  refuta- 
tion of  fo  abfurd  a  plea,  will  perhaps  to  many  readers 
appear  fuperfluous. 

Leaving  therefore  the  endlefs  abfurdities  and  in- 
coherent fictions  of  idolaters,  I  fhall  inquire,  in  the 
next  place,    whether  the   Mahometan   worftnp 

(which 


Sect,  r.      Gospel  fully  Attested.  77 

(which  in  its  fpeculative  principles  appears  more  rati- 
onal) pretends  to  have  been  built  on  the  evidence  of 
miracles. 

Mahomet,  the  founder  of  this  profeflion,  openly 
and  frequently,  as  all  the  world  knows,  difclaimed 
fuch  evidence.     He   frankly  owned  that  he  had  no 
commiflion  nor  power  to  work  miracles,  being   fent 
of  God  to  the  people  only  as  a  preacher.      Not  in- 
deed but  that  there  are  things  mentioned  in  the  revela- 
tion he  pretended  to  give  them,  which,  if  true,  would 
have  been  miraculous ;  fuch  are   the  nocturnal  vifits 
of  the  angel  Gabriel,  (not  unlike  thofe   fecret  inter- 
views, which  Numa,  the  inftitutor   of  the   Roman 
rites,  affirmed   that  he  had  with  the  goddefs  Egeria) 
his  getting  from  time  to  time  parcels  of  the  uncreated 
book  tranfmitted  to  him  from  heaven,  and  his  moft  a- 
mazing  night-journey.     But  thefe  miracles  could  be 
no  evidences  of  his  million.     Why  ?  Becaufe  no  per- 
fon  was  witnefs  to  them.     On  the  contrary,  it  was 
becaufe  his  adherents  had  previoufly  and  implicitly 
believed  his  apoftlefhip,  that  they  admitted  things  fo 
incredible,  on  his  bare  declaration.     There  is  indeed 
one  miracle,  and  but    one,  which   he  urgeth  againft 
the  infidels,  as  the  main  fupport  ofhiscaufe  ;    a  mi- 
racle, for  which  even  we,  in  this  diflant  region  and 
period,  have  not  only  the  evidence  of  teftimony,  but, 
if  we  pleafe  to  ufe  it,  all    the  evidence  which  the 
contemporaries  and   countrymen  of  this  military  a- 
poftleever  enjoyed.     The  miracle  I  mean  is  the  ma- 
nifeft  divinity,    or    fupernatural    excellence,    of  the 
fcriptures  which  he  gave  them  ;  a  miracle,  concern - 
G  3  ing 


78  The  Miracles  of  thf         Part  II. 

ing  which  I  (hall  only  fay,  that  as  it  falls  not  under 
the  cognifance  of  the  fenfes,  but  of  a  much  mofe  fal- 
lible tribunal,  tafte  in  compofition,  and  critical  dif- 
cernment,  fo  a  principle  of  lefs  efficacy  than  enthu- 
fiafm,  even  the  flighted  partiality,  may -make  a  man, 
in  this  particular,  imagine  he  perceives  what  hath  no 
reality.  Certain  it  is,  that  notwithftanding  the  many 
defiances  which  the  prophet  gave  his  enemies  fometimes 
to  produce  ten  chapters,fometimesone,  that  could  bear 
to  be  compared  with  an  equal  portion  of  the  perfpi- 
picuous  book  *,  they  feem  not  in  the  lead  to  have 
been  convinced,  that  there  was  any  thing  miraculous 
in  the  matter.  Nay  this  fublime  performance,  fo 
highly  venerated  by  every  Muifulman,  they  were  not 
afraid  to  blafpheme  as  contemptible,  calling  it,  "  A 
**  confufed  heap  of  dreams,"  and  the  filly  fables  of 
"  ancient  times  t. 

Paffiog 

*  Alcoran.     The    chapter of  the   cow, of  Jonas, — of 

Hud. 

j- Of  cattle, — of  the  fpoils, of  the  prophets.     That  the 

Alcoran  hears  a  very  ftrong  refemblance  to  the  Talmud  is  indeed 
evident ;  hut  I  hardly  think,  we  can  have  a  more  ftriking  inftance 
of  the  prejudices  of  modern  infidels,  than  in  their  comparing  this 
motley  compofiti  n  to  the  writings  of  the  Old  and  New  Tefta- 
ment.  Let  the  reader  but  take  the  trouble  to  perufe  the  hiftory 
of  Jofephby  Mahomec,  which  is  the  fubjecT:  of  a  very  long  chap- 
ter, and  to  compare  it  with  the  account  of  that  patriarch  given  by 
Mofes,  and  if  he  doth  not  perceive  at  once  the  immenfe  inferio- 
rity of  the  former,  I  fhall  never,  for  my  part,  undertake  by  ar- 
gument to  convince  him  of  it.  To  me  it  appears  even  almoft  in- 
credible, that  the  mofl  beautiful  and  moft  affecting  parages  of 
holy  writ,  fhculd  be  fo  wretchedly  disfigured  by  a  writer  whsfe 
intention,  we  are  certain  was  not  to  burkfque  them.  But  that 
every  reader  may  be  qualified  to  form  Tome  notion  of  this  mira- 
cle of  a  book,  1  have  fubjoined  a  fpecimen  of  it,  from  the  chapter 


Sect,  i.       Gospel  fully  attested.  jg 

Paffing  therefore  this  equivocal  miracle,   if  I  may 
call  itfo,  which  I  imagine  was  of  very  little   ufe  in 

m  akin? 

of  iht  ant ;  where  we  are  informed  particularly  of  the  caufe  of  the 
vifit  which  the  queen  of  Sheba  (there  called  Saba)  made  to  Solomon, 
and  of  the  occafion  of  her  converfion  from  idolatry.  I  have  not 
felected  this  paffage  on  account  of  any  fpecial  futility  to  be  found 
in  it,  for  the  like  abfurdities  may  be  obfervcd  in  every  page  ef 
the  performance  ;  but  I  have  felected  it,  becaufe  it  is  fhort,  and 
becaufe  it  contains  a  diftinct  ftory  which  bears  fome  relation  to  a 
paffage  of  fcripture.  I  ufe  Mr  Sale's  vernon,  which  is  the  lateft 
and  the  moft  approved,  omitting  only,  for  the  fake  of  brevity, 
fuch  fupplementary  expreffions,  as  have  been  without  neceffity  in- 
ferted  by  the  tranfiator.  "  Solomon  was  David's  heir  ;  and  he 
"  faid,  O  men,  we  have  been  taught  the  fpeech  of  birds,  and 
"  have  had  all  things  beftowed  on  us;  this  is  manifeft  excellence. 
"  And  his  armies  were  gathered  together  to  Solomon,  confifting 
"  of  genii,  and  men,  and  birds;  and  they  were  led  in  diftinct 
"  bands,  till  they  came  to  the  valley  of  ants.  An  ant  faid,  O 
"  ants,  enter  ye  into  your  habitations,  left  Solomon  and  his  ar- 
"  my  tread  you  underfoot  and  perceive  it  not.  He  fmiled,  laugh- 
"  ing  at  her  words,  and  faid,  O  Lord,  excite  me,  that  I  may 
"  be  thankful  for  thy  favour,  wherewith  thou  haft  favoured  me, 
"  and  my  parents  ;  and  that  I  may  do  that  which  is  right  and 
"  well  pleafing  to  thee  :  and  introduce  me,  thro'  thy  mercy  a- 
"  mong  thy  fervants  the  righteous.  And  he  viewed  the  birds, 
"  and  faid.  What  is  the  reafon  that  I  fee  not  the  lapwing  ? 
"  Is  fhe  abfent  ?  Verily  1  will  chaftife  her  with  a  fevere 
«  chaftifement,  or  I  will  put  her  to  death ;  unlefs  fhe  bring 
**  me  a  juft  excufe.  And  fhe  tarried  not  long,  and  faid,  I  have 
M  viewed  that  which  thou  haft  not  viewed ;  and  I  come  to  thee 
'«  from  Saba,  with  a  certain  piece  of  news.  I  found  a  woman 
"  to  reign  over  them,  who  is  provided  with  every  thing,  and 
"  hath  a  magnificent  throne.  I  found  her  and  her  people  to  war- 
"  fhip  the  fun,  befides  God  :  and  Satan  hath  prepared  their  works 
**  for  them,  and  hath  turned  them  afide  from  the  way,  (where- 
"  fore  they  are  not  directed)  left  they  fhould  worfhip  God,  who 
"  bringcth  to  light  that  which  is  hidden  in  heaven  and  earth, 

"  and 


80  The  Miracles  of  the       Part  II. 

making  profelytes,  whatever  ufe  it   might   have  had, 
in  confirming  and  tutoring  thefe  already  made  ;   it  may 

be 


"  and  knoweth  whatever  they  coneeal,  and  whatever  they  difco- 
"  ver.     God  !     there  is  no  God  but  he  ;  the  Lord  of  the  magni- 
'.'  ficcnt  throne.     He  faid,  We  fhall  fee,  whether  thou  haft  fpo- 
"  ken  the  truth  or  whether  thou  art  a  liar.     Go  with  this  my 
"  letter,  and   caft  it  down  to  them  ;  then  turn  afide  from  them, 
"  and  wait  for  their  anfwer.     The  queen  faid,  O  nobles,  verily 
"  an  honourable  letter  hath  been  delivered  to  me ;  it  is  from  So- 
"  lomon,  and  this  is  the  tenour  thereof.     In  the  name  of  the  mof. 
u  merciful  God,  rife  not  up  againf  me  :  *but  come,  and  fir  render  your- 
u  fives  to  me.     She  faid,  O  nobles,  advife  me  in  my  bufinefs :  I 
"  will  notrefolve  on  any  thing,  till  ye  be  witnefs  thereof.     They 
"  anfwered,    We  are  endued  with  ftrength,  and  endued  with 
"  great  prowefs  in  war  ;  but  the  command  appertaineth  to  thee  : 
"  fee  therefore  what  thou  wilt  command.    She  faid,  Verily  kings, 
"  when  they  enter  a  city,  wafte  the  fame,  and  abafe  the  moft 
««  powerful  of  the  inhabitants  thereof  :  and  fo  will  thefe  do.    But- 
"  I  will  fend  gifts  to  them  :  and  will  wait  for  what  thofe  who 
c-  fhall  be  fent,  fhall  bring  back.     And  when  the  embaflador 
"  came  to  Solomon,  that  prince  faid,  Will  ye  prefent  me  with 
*'  riches  ?  Verily  that  which  God  hath  given  me  is  better  than 
"  what  he  hath  given  you  :  but  ye  glory  in  your  gifts.     Return 
"  to  your  people.     We  will  furely  come  to  them  with  forces 
"  which  they  fhall  not  be  able  to  withftand ;  and  we  will  drive 
fi  them  out  humbled ;  and  they  fhall  be  contemptible.     And  So- 
"  lomon  faid,  O  nobles,  which  of  you  will  bring  me  her  throne, . 
"  before  they  come  and  furrender  themfelves  to  me  ?  A  terrible 
"  genius  anfwered,  I  will  bring  it  thee,  before  thou  arife  from 
"   thy  place.     And  one  wkh  whom  was  the  knowledge   of  the 
"  fcripture  faid,  I  will  bring  it  to  thee,  in  the  twinkling  of  an 
tl  eye.     And  when  Solomon  faw  it  placed  before  hint,  he  faid,  . 
"  This  is  a  favour  of  my  Lord,  that  he  may  make  trial  of  me, 
«  whether  I  will  be  grateful,  or  whether  1  will  be  ungrateful : 
"  and  he  who  is  grateful,  is  grateful  to  his  own  advantage;  but 
"  if  any  fhall  be  ungrateful,  verily  my  Lord  is  felf-fufficient  and 
'«  munificent.     And  he  faid,  Alter  her  throne  that  ihe  may  net 

knew 


Sect,  i.      GosrEL  fully  Attested,  81 

be  worth  while  to  enquire,  what  were  the  reafons, 
that  an  engine  of  fuch  amazing  influence  was  never 
employed  by  one  who  atfumed  a  character  fo  eminent, 
as  the  chief  of  God's  apoftles,  and  the  feal  of the  prophets  P 
Was  it  the  want  of  addrefs  to  manage  an  impofui- 
on  of  this  nature  ?  None  who  knows  the  hiftory 
of  this  extraordinary  perfonage,  will  fufpec~t  that  he 

wanted 

«'  know  it,  to  the  end  we  may  fee  whether  fhe  be  directed,  or 
"  whether  fhe  be  of  thofe  who  are  not  directed.  And  when  fhe 
"  was  come,  it  v/as  faid,  Is  thy  throne  like  this  ?  She  anfwered, 
"  As  though  it  were  the  fame.  And  we  have  had  knowledge  be- 
*  flowed  on  us  before  this,  and  havebeenrefigned.  But  thatwhich 
"  fhe  worfhipped  befides  God,  had  turned  her  afide,  for  fhe  was 
"  of  an  unkelieving  people.  It  was  faid  to  her,  Enter  the  pa- 
"  lace.  And  when  fhe  faw  it,  fhe  imagined  it  to  be  a  great  wa- 
"  ter,  and  fhe  difcovered  her  legs.  Solomon  faid,  Verily  this  is 
"  a  palace,  evenly  floored  with  glafs.  She  faid,  O  Lord,  verily 
"  I  have  dealt  unjuftly  with  my  own  foul ;  and  I  refign  myfelf 
€l  together  with  Selomon,  to  God,  the  Lord  of  all  creatures.'* 
Thus  poverty  of  fentiment,  mcnflrofity  of  invention,  which  al- 
ways betokens  a  diftempered  not  a  rich  imagination,  and  in  re- 
fpect  of  diction  the  moft  turgid  verbofity,  fo  apt  to  be  miftaken 
by  perfons  of  a  viciated  tafte  for  true  fublimity,  are  the  genuine 
characteriftics  of  the  book.  They  appear  almoft  in  every  line. 
The  very  titles  and  epithets  afligned  to  god  not  exempt  from  them. 
The  Lord  of  the  daybreak,  the  Lord  of  the  magnificent  throne, 
the  King  of  the  day  of  judgment,  fcrV.  They  are  pompous  and  in- 
fignificant.  If  the  language  of  the  Alcoran,  as  the  Mahometans 
pretend,  is  indeed  the  language  of  God,  the  thoughts  are  but  too 
evidently  the  thoughts  of  men.  The  reverfe  of  this  is  the  cha- 
racter of  the  Bible.  When  God  fpeaks  to  men,  'tis  reafonable 
to  think  that  he  addreffes  them  in  their  own  language.  In  the 
Bible  you  will  find  nothing  inflated,  nothing  affected  in  the 
flyle.  The  words  are  human,  but  the  fentiments  are  divine. 
Accordingly  there  is  perhaps  no  book  in  the  world,  as  hath  been 
often  juftly  obferved,  which  fuffers  lefs  by  a  literal  tranflatioa 
into  any  other  language. 


82  The  Miraces  of  the         Part  IL 

wanted  either  the  genius  to  contrive,  or  the  refo- 
lution  and  dexterity  to  execute,  any  practicable  ex- 
pedient for  promoting  his  grand  defign  ;  which  was 
no  lefs  than  that  extenfive  defpotifm,  both  religious 
and  political,  he  at  length  acquired.  Was  it  that  he 
had  too  much  honefty  to  concert  and  carry  on  fo  grofs 
an  artifice  ?  Thofe  who  belive  him  to  have  been  an 
impoftor  in  pretending  a  divine  million,  will  hardly 
fufpecl  him  of  fuch  delicacy  in  the  methods  he 
would  take  to  accomplish  his  aim.  But  in  fact 
there  is  no  colour  of  reafon  for  fuch  a  fuggeftion. 
There  was  no  prodigy,  no  miraculous  interpofition, 
which  he  hefnated  to  give  out,  however  extravagant 
when  he  faw  it  would  contribute  to  his  ends.  Pro- 
digies of  which  they  had  no  other  evidence  but  his 
own  allegation,  he  knew  his  adverfaries  might  denyy 
but  could  not  dijprove.  His  fcruples  therefore,  we  may 
well  conclude,  proceeded  notfrom/>r^//y,  but  from//*^ 
dence ;  and  were  folely  againft  fuch  miracles,  as  muft 
be  fubje&ed  to  the  fcrutiny  of  other  people's  fenfes. 
Was  it  that  miracle-working  had  before  that  time 
become  fo  dale  a  device,  that  inftead  of  gaining  him 
the  admiration  of  his  countrymen,  it  would  have  ex- 
pofed  him  to  their  laughter  and  contempt?  The  mod 
curfory  perufal  of  the  Alcoran,  will,  to  every  man 
of  feofe,  afford  an  unanfvverable  confutation  of  this 
hypothefis.*  Laftly,  was  it  that  he  lived  in  an  en- 
lightened 

*  It  is  obfervable,  that  Mahomet  was  very  much  haraffed  by 
the  demands  and  reafonings  of  his  oppofers  with  regard  to  mira- 
cles. They  were  fo  far  from  defpifing  this  evidence,  that  they 
confidered  the  power  of  working  miracles  as  a  never-failing  badge 

of 


Sect,  i.      Gospel  fully  attested.  83 

lightened  age,  and  amongft  a  civilized  and  learned 
people,  who  were  too  quick-fighted  to  be  deceived 
by  tricks,  which  among  barbarians  might  have  pro- 
duced the  moftaflonifhing  effects  ?  Quite  the  reverfe. 
He  lived  in  a  barbarous  age,  and  amongft  an  illiterate 
people,  with  whom,  if  with  any,  he  had  reafon  to  be- 
lieve the  grofleft  deceit  would  have  proved  fuccefsful. 
What  pity  was  it,  that  Mahomet  had  not  a  coun- 
fellor  fo  deeply  verfed  in  human  nature  as  the  eiTayift, 

who 

of  the  prophetical  office  ;  and  therefore  often  afTured  him,  hy  the 
moft  folemn  oaths  and  proteftations,that  they  would  fubmit  impli- 
citly to  his  guidance  in  religion,  if  he  would  once  gratify  them  in 
this  particular.  This  artful  man,  who  doth  not  feem  to  have  been 
of  the  fame  opinion  with  the  efiayift,  that  it  was  eafy  for  cunning 
and  impudence  to  impofe,  in  a  matter  of  this  kind,  on  the  credu- 
lity of  the  multitude,  even  though  an  ignorant  and  barbarous  mul- 
titude, abfolutely  refufed  to  fubject.  his  miffion  to  fo  hazardous  a 
trial.  There  is  no  fubject  he  more  frequently  recurs  to  in  his 
Alcoran,  being  greatly  interefted  to  remove  the  doubts,  which 
were  raifed  in  the  minds  of  many  by  his  difclaiming  this  power ; 
a  power  which  till  then  had  ever  been  looked  upon  as  the  preroga- 
tive of  the  prophets.  The  following  are  fome  of  the  reafons,  with 
which  he  endeavours  to  fatisfy  the  people  on  thi6  head.  I  ft,  The 
foversignty  of  God,  who  is  not  to  be  called  to  account  for  what 
he  gives  or  with-holds.  2d,  The  ufefulneft  of  miracles,  becaufe 
every  man  is  foreordained  either  to  believe,  or  to  remain  in  un- 
belief;  and  this  decree  no  miracles  could  alter.  3d.  The  experi- 
enced inejjicacy  of  miracles  in  former  times.  4th,  The  mercy  of 
God,  who  had  denied  them  this  evidence,  becaufe  the  fin  of  their 
incredulity,  in  cafe  he  had  granted  it,  would  have  been  fo  hei- 
nous, that  he  could  not  have  refpited  or  tolerated  them  any  lon- 
ger, jth,  The  abufe  to  which  miracles  would  have  been  expofed 
from  the  infidels,  who  would  have  either  charged  them  with  inr 
pofture,  or  imputed  them  to  magic.  See  the  chapters — of  cattle* 
— of  thunder,— of  All  Hejir,— of  the  night-journey, — of  the  fpi- 
der,— of  the  prophets. 


S4  The  Miracles  of  the        Part  II. 

who  could  have  allured  him,  that  there  needed  but 
effrontery  and  enterprife  ;  that  with  thefe  auxiliaries 
he  had  reafon  to  hope  the  raoft  impudent  pretences 
would  be  crowned  with  fuccefs  ?  The  too  timid 
prophet  would  doubtlefs  have  remonftrated  againft 
this  fpirited  counfel,  infixing,  that  it  was  one  thing 
to  husfy  friends,  and  another  thing  to  filence  or  con- 
vert enemies ;  that  it  was  one  thing  to  impofe  on 
mens  intellecls,  and  another  thing  to  deceive  their  fen- 
fes:  that  tho'  an  attempt  of  the  lad  kind  mould  fuc- 
ceed  with  fome,  yet  if  the  fraud  were  detected  by 
any,  and  he  might  expect  that  his  adverfaries  would 
exert  themlelves  in  order  to  detect  it,  the  whole  my- 
ftery  of  craft  would  be  divulged,  his  friends  would 
become  fufpicious,  and  the  fpectators  of  fuch  pre- 
tended miracles  would  become  daily  more  prying  and 
critical ;  that  the  confequences  would  infallibly  prove 
fatal  to  the  whole  defign;  and  that  therefore  fuch  a 
cheat  was  on  no  account  whatever  to  be  rifked.  To 
this  methinks  I  hear  the  other  replying  with  fome 
earneftnefs,  •  Make  but  the  trial,  and  you  will  cer- 
1  tainly  find,  that  what  judgment,  nay  and  what 
'  fenfes  your  auditors  have,  they  will  renounce  by 
6  principle  in  thofe  fublime  and  myfterious  fubjects  ; 
'  they  will  imagine  they  fee  and  hear  what  has  no 
'  reality,  nay  whatever  you  mall  defire  that  they 
1  mould  fee  and  hear.  Their  credulity  (forgive  a 
■  freedom  which  my  zeal  infpires)  will  increafe  yor.r 
«  impudence,  and  your  impudence  will  overpower 
1  their  credulity.  The  fmalleft  fpark  may  here  kin- 
•  die  into  the  greateft  flame;  becaufethe  materials  are 
'  always  prepared  for  it.     The  avidum   genus  auricu- 

4  larum 


Sc&.  2.       Gospel  fully  attested.  85 

«  larum  fwallow  greedily,  without  examination,  what- 

*  ever  foothes  fuperftition  and  promotes  wonder.' 
Whether  the  judicious  reader  will  reckon  that  the 
prophet  or  his  counfellor  would  have  had  the  better 
in  this  debate,  I  (hall  not  take  upon  me  to  decide. 
One  perhaps  (if  I  might  be  indulged  in  a  conjecture) 
whofe  notions  are  founded  in  metaphyseal  refine- 
ments, or  whofe  refolutions  are  influenced  by  ora- 
torical declamation,  will  incline  to  the  opinion  of 
the  latter.  One  whofe  fentiments  are  the  refult  of  a 
practical  knowledge  of  mankind,  will  probably  fub- 
cribe  to  the  judgment  of  the.  former,  and  will  allow, 
that  in  this  inftance  the  captain-general  and 
prophet  of  JJlamifm  acted  the  more  prudent  part. 

Shall  we  then  fay,  that  it  was  a  more  objeure  thea- 
rre  on  which  Jesus  Christ  appeared?  Were  his 
ipe£lators  more  ignorant,  or  lefs  adverfe  f  The  con- 
trary of  both  is  manifeft.  It  may  indeed  be  affirmed 
with  truth,  that  the  religion  of  the  wild  Arabs  was 
more  repugnant  to  the  doctrine  of  Mahomet,  than 
the  religious  dogmas  of  the  Jews  were  to  thofe  of 
Jefus.  But  we  (hall  err  egregioufiy,  if  we  conclude 
thence,  that  to  this  repugnancy  the  repugnancy  of 
difpofition  in  the  profefTors  of  thefe  religions  mud  be 
proportionate.  'Tis  a  fine  obfervation  of  the  moft 
piercing  and  comprehenfivc  genius,  which  hath  ap- 
peared in  this  age.  That  "  tho'  men  have  a  very 
u  ftrong  tendency  to  idolatry,  they   are  nevertheless 

*  but  little  attached  to  idolatrous  religions;  that  tho' 
**  they  have  no  great  tendency  to  fpiritual  ideas,  they 
<s  are  nev^rthelefs  ftrongly  attached  to  religions  which 

H  "  enjoiss 


86  The  Miracles  of  the         Part  II. 

"enjoin  the  adoration  of  a  fpiritual  being*."  Hence 
an  attachment  in  Jews,  Christians,  and  Maho- 
metans to  their  refpeclive  religions,which  was  never 
difplayedbypoLYTHEiSTsof  any  denomination.  But 
its fpirititality  was  not  the  only  caufe  of  adherence 
which  the  Jews  had  to  their  religion.  Every  phyfi- 
cal,  every  moral  motive  concurred  in  that  people  to 
rivet  their  attachment,  and  make  them  oppofe  with 
violence,  whatever  bcre  the  face  of  innovation. 
Their  religion  and  polity  were  fo  blended  as  fcarce 
to  be  difhnguifhable  :  this  engaged  their  patrictifm. 
They  were  feiecled  of  God  preferably  to  other  na- 
tions :  this  inflamed  their  prided.  They  were  all 
under  one  fpiritual  head,  the  highprielt,  and  had 
their  folemn  feftivals  celebrated  in  one  temple:  this 
ftrengthened  their  union.  The  ceremonies  of  their 
public  worfhip  were  magnificent :  this  nattered  their 
fenfes.  Thefe  ceremonies  alfo  were  numerous,  and 
occupied  a  great  part  of  their  time :  this,  to  all  the 
•other  grounds  of  attachment,  fuperadded  the  force  of 
habit.  On  the  contrary,  the  fmiplicity  of  the  gofpel, 
as  well  as  the  fpirit  of  humility,  and  moderation,  and 
-charity,  and  univerjality,  (if  I  may  be  allowed  that 
term)  which  it  breathed,  could  not  fail  to  alarm  a 
people  of  fuch  a  cart,  and  awaken,  as  in  facl  it  did, 
the  moft  furious  oppofition.  Accordingly,  Chriftia- 
nity  had  fifty  times  more  fuccefs  amongft  idolaters, 
than  it  had  among  the  Jews.  I  am  therefore  war- 
canted  to  aflert,  that  if  the  miracles  of  our  Lord  and 

Iiis 

*  Be  Pefprit  des  loix,  ]iv.  oj.  chsp.  a 

7  Hew  great  influence  this  motive  had,  appears  from  Luke 
*v.  25.  &£.  and  from  A&sxxii.  21,  22. 


3e&,  2*       Gospel  fully  Attested.  87 

his  apoflles  had  been  an  impofture,  there  could  not 
on  the  face  of  the  earth,  have  been  chofen  for  ex- 
hibiting them,  a  more  unfavourable  theatre  than 
Judea.  On  the  other  hand,  had  it  been  any  where 
practicable,  by  a  difplay  of  falfe  wonders,  to  make 
converts  to  a  new  religion,  no  where  could  a  project 
of  this  nature  have  been  conducted  with  greater  pro- 
bability of  fuccefs  than  in  Arabia.  So  much  for  the 
contrail  there  is  betwixt  the  Chrijtian  Messiah  and 
the  orphan  charge  of  Abu  Taleb.  So  plain  it  is, 
that  the  rnofque  yields  entirely  the  plea  of  miracles  to 
the  fynagogue  and  the  chunk. 

But  from  Heathens  and  Mahometans,  let 
us  turn  our  eyes  to  the  Christian  world.  The 
only  object  here,  which  merits  our  attention,  as 
coming  under  the  denomination  of  miracles  afcribed 
to  a  new  fyftem,  and  as  what  may  be  thought  to  rival 
in  crebibility  the  miracles  of  the  -gofpel,  are  thofe 
faid  to  have  been  performed  in  the  primitive  churchy 
after  the  times  of  the  apoflles,  and  after  the  finifhing 
of  the  facred  canon.  Thefe  will  probably  be  afcrib- 
ed to  a  new  fyftem,  fince  Chriftianity,  for  fome  cen- 
turies, was  not  (as  the  phrafe  is)  ejiablijhed,  or  (to 
fpeak  more  properly)  corrupted  by  human  authority ; 
and  fince  even  after  fuch  eftablifhment,  there  re- 
mained  long  in  the  empire  a  considerable  mixture 
of  idolaters.  We  have  the  greater  reafon  here  to 
confider  this  topic,  as  it  hath  of  late  been  the  fubject 
of  very  warm  difpute,  and  as  the  caufe  of  Chriftianity 
itfelf  (which  I  conceive  is  totally  diftinct)  feems  to 
have  been  (trangely  confounded  with  it.  From  the 
manner  in  which  the  argument  hath  been  conducted, 

who 


IS  The  Miraces  of  the         Part  II. 

who  is  there  that  would  not  conclude  that  both  mud 
fiand  or  fall  together  ?  Nothing  however  can  be  more 
groundlefs,  nothing  more  injurious  to  the  religion  of 
Jefus,  than  fuch  a  conclufion. 

The  learned  writer  who  hath  given  rife  to  this 
eontroverfy,  not  only  acknowledges,  that  the  falfity 
of  the  miracles  mentioned  by  the  fathers,  is  no  evi- 
dence of  the  falfity  of  the  miracles  recorded  in  fcrip- 
ture,  but  that  there  is  even  a  prefumption  in  favour 
of  thefe,  arifing  from  thofe  forgeries,  which  he  pre- 
tends to  have  detected*.  The  juftnefs  of  there- 
mark  contained  in  this  acknowledgment,  will  appear 
more  clearly  from  the  following  obfervations. 

Let  it  be  obferved,  firft,  that  fuppofing  numbers 
of  people  are  afcertained  of  the  truth  of  fome  mira- 
cles, whether  their  conviction  arife  from  fenfe  or 
from  teftimony,  it  will  furely  be  admitted  as  a  confe- 
quence,  that  in  all  fuch  perfons,  the  prefumption 
againft  miracles  from  uncommonnefs  muft  be  great- 
ly diminifhed,  in  feveral  perhaps  totally  extinguish- 
ed. 

Let  it  be  obferved,  fecondly,  that  if  true  miracles 
have  been  employed  fuccefsfully  in  fupport  of  cer- 
tain religious  tenets,  this  fuccefs  will  naturally  fug- 
ged to  thofe,  who  are  zealous  of  propagating  fa- 
vourite opinions  in  religion,  to  recur  to  the  plea  of 
miracles,  as  the  moft  effectual  expedient  for  accom- 
pliihing  their  end.  This  they  will  be  encouraged  to 
do  on  a  double  account :  firfl,  they  know,  that  peo- 
ple from  recent  experience,  are    made  to  expect  fuch 

a 

*  Dr  Middleton's  prefatory  difcourfe  to  lua  letter  from 
Rome. 


Sect.  2.      Gospel  fullv  Attested.  8$ 

a  confirmation  ;  fecondly,  they  know,  that  in  con- 
fequence  of  this  experience,  the  incredibility,  which 
is  the  principal  oburuCaion  to  fuch  an  undertaking, 
is  in  a  manner  removed :  and  there  is,  on  the  con- 
trary, as  in  fuch  circumdances  there  certainly  would 
be,  a  promptnefs  in  the  generality  to  receive 
them. 

Add  to  thefe,  that  if  we  confult  the  hiftory  of 
mankind,  or  even  our  own  experience,  we  fhall  be 
convinced,  that  hardly  hath  one  wonderful  event 
actually  happened  in  any  country,  even  where  there 
have  not  been  fuch  viiible  temptations  to  forgery, 
which  hath  not  given  rife  to  falfe  rumours  of  other 
events  fimilar,  but  frill  more  wonderful.  Hardly 
hath  any  perfon  or  people  atchieved  fome  exploits 
truly  extraordinary,  to  whom  common  report  hath 
not  quickly  attributed  many  others,  as  extraordinary 
at  lead,  if  not  impoffible.  As  fame  may,  in  this 
refpedf,  be  compared  to  a  multiplying  ghfs,  reafona- 
b)e  people  almod  always  conclude  in  the  fame  way 
concerning  both  ;  we  know  that  there  is  not  a  real 
object  correfponding  to  every  appearance  exhibited, 
at  the  fame  time  we  know  that  there  mud  be  fome 
objects  to  give  rife  to  the  appearances. 

I  lhould    therefore   only  beg  of   our    adverfaries, 

that,  for  argument's  fake,  they  will   fuppofe  that  the 

ilracles  related  in  the  New  Tedament   were  really 

>erformed  ;  and  then,  that  they  will  candidly  tell  ust 

'hat,  according  to    their  notions   of   human  nature, 

would,  in  all  likelihood,  have  been  the  confequences. 

They  mud:  be  very  partial  to  a  darling  hypothecs,  or 

little  acquainted  with  the  world,  who  will  hefitate  to 

cwn,  that,  on  this  fuppofition,  'tis  not  barely  proba- 

H  3  able 


90  The  Miracles  of  the        Part  II. 

ble,  but  certain,  that  for  a  few  endowed  with  the 
miraculous  power,  there  would  foon  have  arifen 
numbers  of  pretenders ;  that  from  fome  miracles 
well  attefted,  occafion  would  have  been  taken  to 
propagate  innumerable  falfe  reports.  If  {ot  with 
what  colour  of  juftice  can  the  detection  of  many 
fpurious  reports  among  the  primitive  Chriftians  be 
confidered  as  a  prefumption  againft  thofe  miracles, 
the  reality  of  which  is  the  moft  plaufible  ;  nay  the 
only  plaufible  account  that  can  be  given  of  the  origin 
of  fuch  reports  ?  The  prefumption  is  too  evidently 
on  the  oppofite  fide  to  need  illuftration. 

Tis  not  my  intention  here  to  patronize  either  fide 
of  the  queftion  which  the  Doctor's  Free  inquiry  hath 
occaiioned.  All  that  concerns  my  argument  is,  bare- 
ly to  evince,  and  this  I  imagine  hath  been  evinced, 
fhat,  granting  the  Doctor's  plea  to  be  well  founded, 
there  is  no  prefumption  arifing  hence,  which  tends 
in  the  lowed  degree  to  difcredit  the  miracles  record- 
ed in  holy  writ ;  nay,  that  there  is  a  contrary 
prefumption.  In  further  confirmation  of  this  truth, 
1st  me  afk,  Were  there  ever,  in  any  region  of  the 
globe,  any  flmilar  pretentions  to  miraculous  powers, 
before  that  memorable  era,  the  publication  of  the 
.gofpel  ?  Let  me  alk  again,  Since  tHofe  pretenfions 
ceafed,  hath  it  ever  been  in  the  power  of  the  moft 
daring  enthufiaft,  to  revive  them  any  where  in  favour 
of  a  new  fyftem  ?  Authentic  miracles  will,  for  a  time, 
give  a  currency  to  counterfeits  ;  but  as  the  former  be- 
come lefs  frequent,  the  latter  become  more  fufpecl:- 
ed,  till  at  length  they  are  treated  with  general  con- 
tempt,   and     difappear,     The   danger   then  is,  left 

men 


Seel.  2.       Gospel  fully  Atteseed.  91 

men,  ever  prone  to  extremes,  become  as  extrava- 
gently  incredulous,  as  formerly  they  were  credulous* 
Lazinefs,  the  true  fource  of  both,  always  inclines  us 
to  admit  or  reject  in  the  grojs,  without  entering  on 
the  irkfome  tafk  of  confidering  things  in  detail.  In 
the  firft  inftance,  knowing  fome  fuch  events  to  be 
true,  they  admit  all  ivithout  examination;  in  the  fe- 
cond,  knowing  fome  to  be  falfe,  they  rejeii  all  with- 
out examination.  A  procedure  this,  which,  how- 
ever excufable  in  the  unthinking  herd,  is  altogether 
unworthy  a  philosopher. 

But  it  may  be  thought,  that  the  claim  to  miracles 
in  the  early  ages  of  the  church,  continued  too  long 
to  be  fupported  folely  on  the  credit  of  thofe  perform- 
ed by  our  Lord  and  his  apoftles.  In  order  to  ac- 
count for  this,  it  ought  to  be  attended  to,  that  in  the 
courfe  of  fome  centuries,  the  fituation  of  affairs,  with 
regard  to  religion,  was  really  inverted.  Educa- 
tion, and  even  fuperftition,  and  bigotry,  and  popula- 
rity, which  the  miracles  of  Chrift  and  his  apoftles 
had  to  encounter,  came  gradually  to  be  on  the  fide 
of  thofe  wonders,  faid  to  have  been  performed  in  af- 
ter times.  If  they  were  potent  enemies,  and  fuch  as 
we  have  reafon  to  believe  nothing  but  the  force  of 
truth  could  vanquifh  ;  they  were  alfo  potent  allies, 
and  may  well  be  fuppofed  able  to  give  a  temporary 
triumph  to  falfehood,  efpecially  when  it  had  few  or 
no  enemies  to  combat.  But  in  difcourfing  on  the 
prodigies  faid  to  have  been  performed  in  primitive 
times,  I  have  been  infenfibly  carried  from  the  point, 
to  which  I  propofed  in  this  feclion  to  confine  myfelf. 
From  inquiring  into  miracles   afcribed   to  new  fy- 

ftems 


92  The  Miracles  of  the         Part II. 

items,  I  have  proceeded  to  thofe  pleaded  in  confir- 
mation of  fvftems  nreviouily  eftablilhed  and  generally 
received. 

Leaving  fo  remote  a  period,  I  propofe,  laftly, 
to  inquire,  whether,  lince  that  time,  any  herefiarch 
whatever,  any  founder  of  a  new  feci,  or  publifher 
of  a  new  fyftem,  bath  pretended  to  miraculous  pow- 
ers. If  the  effayift  had  known  of  any  fuch  pretender, 
he  furely  would  have  mentioned  him.  But  as  he 
hath  not  afforded  us  any  light  on  this  fubjedt,  I  fhall 
juft  recall  to  the  remembrance  of  my  reader,  thofe 
perfons  who,  either  as  innovators  or  reformers,  have 
made  fome  figure  in  the  church.  They  were  the 
perfons  from  whom,  if  from  any,  a  plea  cf  this  kind 
might  naturally  have  been  expected ;  efpecially  at  a 
time  when  Europe  was  either  plunged  in  barbarifm, 
or  but  beginning  to  emerge  out  of  it, 

Was  ever  then  this  high  prerogative,  the  power 
of  working  miracles,  claimed  or  exercifed  by  the 
founders  of  the  feels  of  the  Waldenfes  and  Albigen- 
fesr  Did  Wickliff  in  England  pretend  to  it?  Did 
Hufs  or  Jerom  in  Bohemia?  To  come  nearer  mo- 
cern  times,  Did  Luther  in  Germany,  Zuingiius  in 
Switzerland,  Calvin  in  France,  or  any  other  of  the 
reformers,  advance  this  plea?  Do  fuch  of  them  as 
are  authors,  mention  in  their  writings  any  miracles 
they  performed,  or  appeal  to  them  as  the  evidences 
of  their  doctrine  ?  Do  contemporary  hiftorians  al- 
ledge,  that  they  challenged  the  faith  of  their  auditors, 
in  confequence  of  fuch  fupernatural  powtrsl  I  ad- 
mit, if  they  did,  that  their  miracles  might  be  afcri- 
bed  to  a  new  fyftem.     For  tho'  they  pretended  only 

to 


Sec**.  2.       Gospel  fully  Attested.  93 

to  re-eflabliih  the  Chriftian  inftitution,  in  its  native 
purity,  expunging  thofe  pernicious  interpolations, 
which  a  falfe  philofophy  had  foifted  into  the  doctrinal 
part,  and  Pagan  fuperftition  into  the  moral  and  the 
ritual ;  yet  as  the  religion  they  inculcated,  greatly 
differed  from  the  faith  and  worlhip  of  the  times,  it 
might,  in  this  refpecl,  be  denominated  a  new  fy- 
ftem  ;  and  would  be  encountered  by  all  the  violence 
and  prejudice,  which  novelties  in  religion  never  fail 
to  excite.  Not  that  the  want  of  real  .miracles  was  a 
prefumption  again  ft  the  truth  of  their  doctrine.  The 
God  of  nature,  who  is  the  God  of  ChrilYians,  does 
nothing  in  vain.  No  new  revelation  was  pretended 
to ;  confequently  there  was  no  occafion  for  fuch 
fupernatural  fuppoft.  They  appealed  to  the  revelati- 
on formerly  bellowed,  and  by  all  parties  acknow- 
ledged, as  to  the  proper  rule  in  this  controverfv: 
they  appealed  to  the  reafon  of  mankind  as  the  judge  ; 
and  the  reafon  of  mankind  was  a  competent  judge  of 
the  conformity  of  their  doclrine  to  this  unerring  rule. 
But  how,  upon  the  author's  principles,  (hall  w; 
account  for  this  moderation  in  the-reformers  ?  Were 
they,  in  his  judgment,  calm  inquirers  into  truth  ? 
Were  they  difpatnonate  reafoners  in  defence  of  it  ? 
Far  otherwife.  He  tells  us,  "  They  may  fafely  be 
"  pronounced  to  have  been  univerfally  inflamed  with 
"  the  higheft  enthufiafm  *."  And  doubtlefs  we 
cannot  expect  from  this  hand  a  more  amiable  picture 
of  their  difciples.  May  not  we  then,  in  our  turn, 
fafely  pronounce,  this  writer  himfelf  being  judge, 
that  for  a  man  to  imagine  he  fees  what  hath"  no  rea- 
lity, to  impofe  in  this  manner  not  only  on  his   own 

undcr» 

*  Hift.  of  Great  Britain,  James  I.  chap.  1. 


94-  The  Miracles  of  the         Part  II 

underftanding,  but  even  on  his  external  fenfes,  is  a 
pitch  of  delufion  higher  than  the  higheil  enthufiafm 
can  produce,  and  is  to  be  imputed  only  to  downright 
frenzy  *  ? 

Since 

*  Perhaps  it  will  be  pleaded  that  the  working  of  miracles  was 
confidered  by  the  leaders  in  the  reformation  as  a  Popifh  artifice, 
and  as  therefore  worthy  of  being  difcarded  with  the  other  abufes 
which  Popery  had  introduced.  That  this  was  not  the  light  in 
which  miracles  were  viewed  by  Luther,  who  juftly  poffeffes  the 
firft  place  in  the  lift  of  reformers,  is  evident  from  the  manner  in 
which  he  argues  againft  Muncer,  the  apoftle  of  the  Anabaptifts. 
This  man,  without  ordination,  had  afTumed  the  office  of  a  Chrif- 
tian  pafter.  A-gainft  this  conduct  Luther  remonftrates,  as  being 
in  his  judgment,  an  ufurpation  of  the  facred  function.  "  Let 
him  be  afked,  "  fays  he,  "  Who  made  him  teacher  of  religion  ? 
"  If  he  anfwers,  God  ;  let  him  prove  it  by  a  vifible  miracle :  for 
"  'tis  by  fuch  figns  that  God  declares  himfelf,  when  he  gives  an 
,f  extraordinary  miffion."  When  this  argument  was  afterwards 
retorted  on  himfelf  by  the  Romanifts,  who  dtfired  to  know  how 
his  own  vocation,  originally  limited  and  dependent,  hadbecome  not 
only  unlimited,  but  quite  independent  of  the  hierarchy,  from 
which  he  had  received  it ;  his  reply  was,  That  the  intrepidity, 
with  which  he  had  been  enabled  to  brave  fo  many  dangers,  and 
the  fuccefi  with  which  his  enterprfe  had  been  crowned,  ought  to 
be  regarded  as  miraculous :  And  indeed  melt  of  his  followers 
were  of  this  opinion.  Eut  whether  this  opinion  was  erroneous, 
or  whether  the  argument  againft  Muncer  was  conclufivc,  'tis  not 
lny  bufinefs  to  enquire.  Thus  much  is  evident  from  the  fcory  : 
fuji,  That  this  reformer,  far  from  rejecting  miracles  as  a  Romiih 
trick,  acknowledged,  that  in  fome  religious  queftions,  they  are 
the  only  medium  of  proof  ;  fecondly^  That  notwithstanding  this, 
he  never  attempted,  by  a  fhow  of  miracles,  to  impofe  on  thefen- 
fes  of  his  hearers  ;  (if  they  were  deceived  in  thinking  that  his 
fuccefs  and  magnanimity  were  miraculous,  'twas  not  their  fenf^s, 
but  their  understanding  that  was  deceived)  ;  lajily.,  That  the 
Anabaptifts  themfelves,  tho'  perhaps  the  molt  outrageous  fanatics 
that  ever  exifted,  did  not  pretend  to  the  power  of  working  mira- 
cles.  Sleidmn  lib.  $.Lutb.  De  votis  tnonaft.   tsV-   £/i/?.     ad  frid* 

S?K>   Vi'-ctm.  c$>.  Chtraum, 


Seel.  i.      Gospel  fully  attested.  95 

Since  the  world   began,  there  hath  not  appeared  a 
more  general  propeniion  to  the  wiideft  fanaticifm,  a 
greater  degree  of  credulity  in  every  claim  that  was 
made  to  the  illapfes  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  or  more  tho- 
rough contempt  of  all  eftablifhed  modes  cf  worfhip, 
than  appeared  in  this  ifland  about  the  middle  of  the 
laft  century.     'Tis  aftoniming,  that  when  the  minds 
of  men  were  intoxicated  with  enthufiafm  ;  when  e- 
very  new  pretender  to  divine  illuminations  was  quick, 
ly  furrounded  by  a  crowd  of  followers,  and  his  mod 
incoherent  efFufions  greedily  fwallowed  as  the  dictates 
of  the  Holy  Ghoft ;  that  in  fuch  a  Babel  of  feclaries, 
none  are  to  be  found,  who  advanced  a  claim  to  the 
power  of  working  miracles;  a  claim  which,  in  the 
author's  opinion,  tho'  falfe,  is  eafily  fupported,  and 
wonderfully  fuccefsful,  efpecially  among  enthufiafts. 
Yet    to   Mr  Hume   himfelf,  who  hath  written  the 
hiitory  of  that  period,  and  who  will  not  be  accufed 
of  neglecting  to  mark^  the  extravagancies  effected  by 
enthufiafm,  I  appeal  whether  this  remark  be  juft. 

Will  it  be  alledged  as  an  exception  that  one  or  two 
frantic  people  among  the  Quakers,  not  the  leaders  of 
the  party,  did  actually  pretend  to  fuch  a  power  ?  Let 
it  be  remembered,  that  this  conduct  had  no  other 
confequences,  but  to  bring  upon  the  pretenders  fuch 
a  general  contempt,  as  in  that  fanatical  and  gloomy 
age,  the  moft  unintelligible  jargon  or  glaring  nonfenfe 
would  never  have  been  able  to  produce. 

Will  it  be  urged  by  the  eflTayift,  that  even  in  the  be- 
ginning of  the  prefent  century,  this  plea  was  revived 
in  Britain  by  the  French  prophets,  a  fet  of  poor vifiona- 
ries,  who,  by  the  barbarity  with  which  they  had  been 
treated  in  their  own  country,  had  been  wrought  up 

to 


96  The  Miracles  of  the       Part  II. 

to  madnefs,  before  they  took  refuge  in  this  r  I  muft 
beg  leave  to  remind  hiin,  that  it  is  manifeft,  from  the 
hiftory  of  thofe  delirious  and  unhappy  creatures,  that 
hy  no  part  of  their  conduct  did  they  fo  effectually  open 
the  eyes  of  mankind  naturally  credulous,  difcredit  their 
own  infpirations,  and  ruin  their  caufe,  as  by  this, 
not  lefs  foolilh  than  prefumptuous  pretence.  Accor- 
dingly they  are  perhaps  the  only  kS:,  which  hath 
fprung  up  fo  lately,  made  fo  great  a  buftle  for  a  while, 
and  which  is  neverthelefs  at  this  day  totally  extinct. 
It  defervesalfoto  be  remarked  concerning  this  people, 
that  though  they  were  mad  enough  to  imagine  that 
they  could  reftore  a  dead  man  to  life ;  nay  tho'  they 
proceeded  fo  far,  as  to  determine  and  announce  be- 
forehand the  day  and  the  hour  of  his  refurrection  ;  yet 
none  of  them  were  fo  diffracted,  as  to  imagine,  that 
they  had  feen  him  rife ;  not  one  of  them  afterwards 
pretended,  that  their  prediction  had  been  fulfilled. 
Thus  even  a  frenzy,  which  had  quite  difordered  their 
intellects,  could  not  in  this  inftance  overpower  their 
fenfes. 

Upon  the  whole,  therefore,  tillfome  contrary  ex- 
ample is  produced,  I  may  warrantably  conclude, — 
that  the  religion  of  the  Bible  is  the  only  religion  ex- 
tant, which  claims  to  have  been  recommended  by  the 
evidence  of  miracles; — that  though  in  different  ages 
and  countries,  numberlefs  enthufiafts  have  a-rifen,  ex- 
tremely few  have  dared  to  advance  this  plea ; — that 
wherever  any  have  had  the  boldnefs  to  recur  to  it, 
it  hath  proved  the  bane,  and  not  the  fupport,  of  their 
caufe.  Thus  it  hath  been  evinced,  as  was  propofed, 
that  there  is  no  prefumption  arifing  from  the  bifior} 


Seel.  3.       Gospel  fully  Attested.  97 

§f  the  world,  which  can  in  the  leafl:  invalidate  the  ar- 
gument from  miracles,  in  defence  ofChriilianity. 

SECTION    III. 

No  miracles  recorded  by  hijlorians  of  other  religions  are 
fubverjive  of  the  evidence  arijing  from  the  miracles 
wrought  in  prsrf  of  Chri/iitwity,  or  can  be  atf.dered 
as  ctntrary  tejlimom. 

i  T7TTHY  is  a  miracle  regarded  as  evidence  of  a 
V  V  religious  doctrine  ?'  Or,  '  What  connection 
1  is  there  between  an  act  of  power  admitted  to  be 
£  fupematural,  and  the  truth  of  a  propofition  pro- 
■  nounced  by  the  perfon  who  exerts  that  power  r' 
Thefeare  queftions,  which  fome  of  our  infidels  have 
exulted  in  as  unanfwerable  :  and  they  are  queftions, 
which  'tis  proper  to  examine  a  little  ;  not  {o  much 
for  their  own  fake,  as  becaufe  a  fatisfa&ory  anfwer  to 
them  may  throw  light  on  the  fubject  of  this  fac- 
tion. 

A  man,  I  fuppofe,  of  an  unblemifhed  character, 
advanceth  doctrines  in  religion,  unknown  before,  but 
not  in  themfelves  apparently  impious  or  abfurd.  We 
interrogate  him  about  the  manner  wherein  he  attained 
the  knowledge  ofthofe  doctrines.  He  affirms,  That 
by  no  procefs  of  reafoning,  nor  in  anv  other  natural 
way,  did  hedifcover  them  ;  but  that  they  were  re- 
vealed to  him  by  the  Spirit  of  God.  It  muft  be  own- 
ed, there  is  a  very  ftrong  prefumption  againftthe  truth 
of  what  he  fays ;  and  'tis  of  confequence  to  inquire, 
whence  that  prefumption  arifeth.  It  is  not  primarily 
from  any  doubt  of  ths  man's  integrity.  If  the  fact  he 
I  related 


98  The  Miracles  of  the         Part  II. 

related,  were  of  an  ordinary  nature,  the  reputation  he 
has  hitherto  maintained  would  fecure  him  froirTbeing 
fufpected  of  an  intended  deceit.  It  is  not  from 
any  abfurdity  or  immoral  tendency  we  perceive  in  the 
doctrine  itfelf.  It  arifeth  principally,  if  not  folely 
from  thefe  two  circumitanees,the  extreme  uncommon- 
ntfs  of  fuch  a  revelation,  and  the  great  facility  with 
which  people  of  ftrong  fancy,  may  in  this  particular 
impofeupon  themfelves.  The  man,  I  fuppofed,  ac- 
quaints us  further,  thatGod,  when  he  communicated 
to  him  the  truths  he  publifhes,  communicated  alfo  the 
power  of  working  miracles;  fuch  as,  of  giving  fight  to 
the  blind,  and  hearing  to  the  deaf,  of  railing  the  dead, 
and  making  whole  the  maimed.  'Tis  evident,  that 
we  have  precifely  the  fame  prefumption  againft  his  be* 
ing  endued  with  fuch  a  power,  as  againft  his  having 
obtained  fuch  a  revelation.  Two  things  are  afTerted  : 
there  is  one  prefumption,  and  but  one,  againft:  them  ; 
and  it  equally  effects  them  both.  Whatever  proves 
either  aflertion,  removes  the  only  prefumption  which 
hinders  our  belief  of  the  other.  The  man,  I  fuppofe, 
laftly,  performs  the  miracles  before  us,  which  he  faid 
he  wascommiffioned  to  perform.  We  can  no  longer 
doubt  of  a  fupernatural  communication.  We  have 
now  all  the  evidence  which  the  integrity  of  the  per- 
fon  could  give  us,  as  to  an  ordinary  event  attefted  by 
him,  that  the  doctrine  he  delivers  as  from  God,  is  from 
God,  and  therefore  true. 

Nay,  we  have  more  evidence  than  for  any  common 
fact,  vouched  by  a  perfon  of  undoubted  probity.  As 
God  is  both  almighty  and  all-wife,  if  he  hath  beftow. 
ed  on  any  fo  uncommon  a  privilege,  'tis  highly  pro- 
bable, that  it  is  beftowed  for  promoting  fome  end  un- 
commonly 


Set.  3.       Gospel  fully  Attested.  99 

commonly  important.  And  what  more  important 
end  than  to  reveal  to  men  that  which  maybe  condu- 
cive to  their  prefent  and  eternal  happinefs  ?  It  may 
be  faid,  That,  at  moft,  it  can  only  prove  the  inter- 
pofal  of  fome  power  fuperior  to  human  :  the  being 
who  interpofeth  is  perhaps  a  bad  being,  and  intends 
to  deceive  us.  This  it  may  be  allowed,  is  pojfible ; 
but  the  other  is  probable.  For,///,  From  the  light 
of  nature,  we  have  no  pofitive  evidence  of  the  exig- 
ence of  fuch  intermediate  beings,  good  or  bad.  Their 
exigence  is  therefore  only  poffible.  Of  the  exigence 
and  perfections  of  God,  we  have  the  higheft  moral 
affurance.  Secondly,  If  there  were  fuch  beings,  that 
railing  the  dead,  and  giving  fight  to  the  blind,  mould 
come  within  the  verge  of  their  power,  is  alfo  but  poi- 
fible  ;  that  they  arc  within  the  fphere  of  omnipotence 
is  certain.  Thirdly,  Whatever  feems  to  imply  a  fuf- 
penfion  of  any  of  the  edabliihed  laws  of  nature,  we 
may  prefume,  with  great  appearance  of  reafon,  pro- 
ceeds from  the  author  of  nature,  either  immediately,  cr, 
which  amounts,  to  the  fame  thing  mediately  :  that  is, 
by  the  intervention  of  fome  agent  impowered  by  him. 
To  all  thefe  there  will  alfo  accrue  preemptions,  not 
only,  as  was  hinted  already,  from  the  character  of  the 
preacher,  but  from  the  apparent  tendency  of  the  doc- 
trine, and  from  the  effect  it  produceth  on  thofe  who 
receive  it.  And  now  the  connection  between  the  mi- 
racle and  the  doctrine  is  obvious.  The  miracle  re- 
moves the  improbability  of  a  fupernatural  communi- 
cation of  which  it  is  in  fact  an  irrefragable  evidence. 
This  improbability,  which  was  the  only  obftacle,  be- 
ing removed,  the  doclrine  hath, at  leaft,  all  the  evidence 

of 


too  The  Miraces  of  the  Fart  II. 

of  a  common  fact,  attefted  by  a  man  of  known  virtue 
and  good  fenfe. 

In  order  to  illuMrate  this  further,  I  fhall  recur  to 
the  inftance  I  have  already  had  occafion  to  confider, 
of  the  Dutchman  and  the  King  of  Siam.  I  fhall  fup- 
pofe,  that,  befrdes  the  account  given  by  the  former 
of  the  freezing  of  water  in  Holland,  he  had  informed 
the  prince  of  the  afxonifhing  effedls  produced  by  gur>- 
powder,  with  which  the  latter  had  been  entirely  unac- 
quainted. Both  accounts  appear  to  him  a;.ke  incredi- 
ble, or,  if  you  pleafe,  abfolutely  rmpoffible.  Some 
time  afterwards,  the  Dutchman  gets  imported  into 
rtie  kingdom  afufficient  quantity  of  gunpowder,  with 
the  necefTary  artillery.  He  informs  the  monarch  of 
this  acquisition;  who  having  permitted  him  to  make 
experiments  on  fome  of  his  cattle  and  buildings,  per- 
cieves,  with  inexpreftible  amazement,  that  all  the 
European  had  told  hirn,  of  the  celerity  and  violence 
with  which  this  deftruclive  powder  operates,  is  flricl:- 
]y  conformable  to  truth.  I  afk  any  confederate  per* 
fan,  Would  not  this  be  enough  to  reftore  theffranger 
10  the  Indian's  good  opinion,  which,  I  fuppofe,  his 
former  experienced  honefty  had  entitled  him  to? 
Would  it  not  remove  the  incredibility  of  the  account 
lie  had  given  of  the  freezing  of  water  in  northern  coun- 
tries r  Yet,  if  abflraclly  confidered,  what  connec- 
tion is  there  between  the  effects  of  gunpowder  and 
the  effects  of  cold  r  But  the  prefumption  ariilng 
from  miracles,  in  favour  of  the  doctrine  publimed  by 
the  performer,  as  divinely  infpired,  mull  be  incompa- 
ly  flronger  ;  fince,  frcm  what  hath  been  faid,  it 
appears  to  have  fcveral  peculiar  circumfiances,  which 

add 


Ssd.  ^.         GOSFEL    FULLY    ATTESTED, 


IOI 


add  weight  to  it.  'Tis  evident,  then,  that  miracles 
are  a  proper  proof,  and  perhaps  the  only  proper  proof, 
of  a  revelation  from  Heaven.  But  'tis  alio  evident, 
that  miracles  may  be  wrought  for  other  purpofes,  and 
may  not  be  intended  as  proofs  of  any  doctrine  what- 
foever. 

Thus  much  being  premifed,  I  (hall  examine  ano- 
ther very  curious  argument  of  the  eftayift:    "   There 
"  is  no  teftimony,"  fays  he,   "  for  any  prodigy,  that 
"  is  not    oppofed   by  an  infinite  number  of    vvitnef- 
"  fes  ;  fo  that  not  only  the  miracle  deftroys  the  credit 
11  of  the  teftimony,  but  even  the  teftimony  deftroys 
"  itfelf  V     In    order  to  illuftrate  this  ftrange  peti- 
tion* he  obferves,  that,  "  in    matters    of    religion, 
"  whatever  is  different   is  contrary ;  and  that    it   is 
"  impcffble  the  religions  of  ancient  Rome,  of  Tur- 
-  key,  of  Siam,  and  of  China,  mould  all  of  them  be 
<«  eftablifhed    on  any  folid  foundation.     Every   mira- 
••  cle  therefore  pretended  to  have  been  wrought  in  any 
<<  of  thefe   religions,    (and  all  of  them    abound    in 
t(  miracles)    as    its  direct  fcope  is  to    eftabiifh   the 
11  particular   fyftem  to    which   it  is  attributed,  fo  it 
"  has    the  fame  force,  tho'  more  indirectly,  to  overl 
"  throw  every  other  fyftem.     In    deftroying   a   rival 
u  fyftem,    it  likewife   deftroys    the   credit  of    thofe 
•'  miracles,  on  which   that   fyftem   was  eftablifhed ; 
"  fo  that  all   the  prodigies  of  different  religions  are 
"  to  be  re^rded  as  contrary  facts,  and  the  evidences 
"    of    thefe  prodigies,  whether  weak   or    ftrong,  as 
*  oppofite  to  each  other  ."     Never  did  an    author 
3  I  more 

*  p.  190,  &c 


ic2  The  Miracles  of  the         Part  II. 

more  artfully  avail  himfelf  of  indefinite  expreflions. 
With  what  admirable  fleght  does  he  vary  his  phra- 
fes,  fo  as  to  make  the  inadvertent  reader  look  upon 
them  as  fynonymous,  when  in  fact  their  fignificati- 
ons  are  totally  diftindl  ?  Thus  what,  by  a  moft  ex- 
traordinary idiom,  is  called  at  firft,  /  miracles 
'  wrought  in  a  religion,'  we  are  next  to  regard,  as 
■  miracles  attributed  to  a  particular  fyftem,'  and  laft- 
ly,    as    •  miracles,  the  direct   fcope  of  wiiich  is  to 

•  eftablifh  that  fyftem.'  Every  body,  I  will  venture 
to  fay,  in  beginning  to  read  the  fentence,  if  he 
forms  any  notion  of  what  the  author  means  by  a 

•  miracle  wrought  in  a  religion,'  underftands  it  barely 
as  a'  miracle  wrought  among  thofe  who  profefs  4 
f  a  particular  religion,'  the  words  appearing  to  be 
ufed  in  the  fame  latitude,  as  when  we  call  the  tra- 
ditional tales  current  among  the  Jews,  tho'  they 
fhould  have  no  relation  to  religion,  Jewifh  tales  ; 
and  thofe  in  like  manner  Mahometan  or  Pagan  tales, 
which  are  current  among  Mahometans  or  Pagans. 
Such  a  miracle,  the  reader,  ere  he  is  aware,  is> 
brought  to  confider  as  a  miracle  attributed  to  a  par- 
ticular fyftem  ;  nay  further,  as  a  *  miracle,  the  direct 

•  fcope  of  which  is  to  eftablifh  that  fyftem.'  Yet 
nothing  can  be  conceived  more  different  than  the 
meaning  of  thefe  expreflions,  which  are  here  jum- 
bled together  as  equivalent. 

'Tis  plain,  that  all  the  miracles  of  which  there 
is  any  record,  come  under  the  firft  denomination. 
They  are  all  fuppofed  to  have  been  wrought  before 
men,  or  among  men ;  and  wherever  there  are 
men,  there  is  religion  of  fome  kind  or  other.  Per- 
haps 


Sect.  3.      Gospel  fully  attested.  103 

haps  too  all  may,  in  a  very  improper  fenfe,  be  attri- 
buted to  a  religious  fyftem.  They  all  imply  an  in- 
terruption of  the  ordinary  courfe  of  nature.  Such 
an  interruption,  wherever  it  is  obferved,  will  be 
afcribed  to  the  agency  of  thofe  divinities  that  are  a- 
dored  by  the  obfervers,  and  fo  may  be  faid  to  be 
attributed  by  them  to  their  own  fyftem.  But  where 
are  the  miracles  (thofe  of  holy  writ  excepted)  of 
which  you  can  fay  with  propriety,  it  is  their  direct 
fcope  to  eftablilh  a  particular  fyftem  ?  Muft  we  not 
then  be  ftrangely  blinded  by  the  charms  of  a  few  am- 
biguous terms,  if  we  are  made  to  confound  things 
fo  widely  different  ?  Yet  this  confufion  is  the  very 
bads,  on  which  the  author  founds  his  reafoning, 
and  rears  this  tremendous  doctrine;  That*  a  mira- 
1  cle  of  Mahomet,  or  any  of  his  fuccelfors,'  and,  by 
parity  of  reafon,  a  miracle  of  Chrift,  or  any  of  his 
apoftles,  *  is  refuted  (as  if  it  had  been   mentioned, 

*  and  had  in  exprefs  terms,  been  contradicted;  by 
1  the  teftimony  of  Titus   Livius,  Plutarch,    Taci- 

*  tus,  and  of  all  the  authors,  Chinefe,  Grecian, 
'  and  Roman  Catholic,  who  have  related  any  mira- 

*  cles  in  their  particular  religions.'  Here  all  the 
miracles,  that  have  been  related  by  men  of  different 
religions,  are  blended,  as  coming  under  the  common 
denomination  of  miracles,  the  direct  fcope  of  which 
was  to  eftablifh  thofe  particular  religious  fvftems  ;  an 
insinuation,  in  which  there  is  not  even  the  madow  of 
truth. 

That  the  reader  may  be  fatisfied  on  this  point,  I 
muft  beg  his  attention  to  the  following  obfervations 
concerning  the  miracles  of  profane  hiftory.  Firft, 
Many  tacls  are  related  as  miraculous,  where  we  may 

admit 


10^  The  Miracles  of  the        Part  II. 

admit  the  fact,  without  acknowledging  the  miracle. 
Instances  of  this  kind  we  have  in  relations  concern- 
ing comets,    eclipfes,     meteors,    earthquakes,    and 
fuchlike.     Secondly,  The  miracles  may  be    admitted 
as  genuine,  and  the  manner  in  which  hiitorians   ac- 
count for  them,  rejected  as   abfurd.     The   one   is  a 
matter  of  teftimony,  the    other  of  conjecture.      In 
this  a  man  is  influenced  by  education  ,  by  prejudices, 
by  received  opinions.     In  every  country,  as  was  ob- 
ferved  already,  men  will  recur  to  the  theology  of  the 
place,    for  the   folution  of  every  phenomenon  fup- 
pofed  miraculous.     But,  that  it  was  the  fcope  oi  the 
miracle  to  fupport  the  theology,    is    one  thing;  and 
that  fanciful  men  thought  they  difcovered  in  the  theo- 
logy the  caufes  of  the  miracle,  is  another.     The  in- 
habitants of  Lyftra  accounted,  from  the  principles  of 
their   own   religion,  for    the  miracle  performed  in 
their  city  by  Paul  aud  Barnabas*.     Was  it  therefore 
the  fcope  of  that  miracle  to  fupport    the    Lycaonian 
religion  r    Thirdly,  Many  miracles  are   recorded,   as 
produced  directly  by  Heaven  without  the   miniftra- 
tion  of  men  :  by  what   conduction  are  theft-   difco- 
vered to  be  proofs  of  a  particular  fyftem  r     Yetthefe 
alfo,     wherever    they   happen,    will   be    accounted 
for  by  the  natives  of  the  country,    from  the    princi- 
ples of  their  own  fu perdition.     Had  any  of  the  Pa- 
gan citizens  efcaped  the   ruin  in  which  Sodom  was 
miraculoudy  involved,    they  would   doubtlefs  have 
fought  lor  the  caufe  of  this  deftruction  in  the  eftablifh- 
ed  mode  of  polytheifm,  and  would  probably    have 
imputed  it  to  the  vengeance  of  fome  of  their  deities,  . 
incurred  by  the  neglect  of  fome  frivolous   ceremony. 

Would 
*  A£ts  xiv.  8.  &c 


Sec"t.3-     Gospel  fully  Attested.  105 

Would  it  therefore  have  been  the  fcope  of  the  miracle 
to  confirm  this  nonfenfe  ?  Fourthly,  Even  miracles 
faid  to  have  been  performed  by  a  man,  are  no  eviden- 
ces of  the  truth  of  that  man's  opinions;  fuch,  I 
mean,  as  he  pretends  not  to  have  received  by  revela- 
tion, but  by  the  excercife  of  reafon,  by  education, 
or  by  information  from  other  men  ;  no  more  than 
a  man's  being  endowed  with  bodily  ftrenth  greater 
than  ordinary,  would  prove  him  to  be  fuperior  to 
others  in  his  mental  faculties.  I  conclude  with  de- 
claring, that  if  inftances  fhall  be  produced,  of  mira- 
cles wrought  by  men  of  probity,  in  proof  of  doctrines 
which  they  affirm  to  have  been  revealed  to  them  from 
Heaven,  and  which  are  repugnant  to  the  doctrine  of 
the  Bible,  then  I  fhall  think  it  equitable  to  admit, 
that  religious  miracles  contradict  one  another.  Then 
will  reafonable  people  be  reduced  to  the  dilemma, 
either  of  difproving  the  allegations  on  one  fide,  or 
of  acknowledging  that  miracles  can  be  no  evidence  of 
revelation.  No  attempt  however  hath  as  yet  been 
made  by  any  writer  to  produce  an  inftance  of  this 
kind. 

■  But  will  nothing  lefs  fatisfy  r '  replies  the  author. 

*  Will  not  the  predictions  of  augurs  and  oracles,  and 
1  the  intimations  faid  to  have  been  given  by  the  gods 

*  or  faints  in  dreams  and  vifions,  of  things  not  other- 
1  wife  knowable  by  thofe  to  whom   they   were   thus 

*  intimated  ;  will  not  thefe,  and  fuchlikc  prodigies, 
1  ferve  in  fome  degree  as  evidence  r '  As  evidence  of 
what  ?  Shall  we  fay  of  any  religious  principles  con- 
veyed at  the  fame  time  by  revelation  r  No,  'tis  not 
even  pretended,  that  there  were  any  fuch  principles 

fa 


106  The  Miracles  of  the         Part  II 

fo  conveyed  :  but  as  evidence  of  principles  which  had 
been  long  before  entertained,  and  which  were  originally 
imbibed  from  education,  and  from  education  only. 
That  the  evidence  here,  fuppofing  the  truth  of  the 
facls,  is  at  beft  but  very  indirect,  and  by  no  means 
on  the  fame  footing  with  that  of  the  miracles  re- 
corded in  the  gofpel,  might  be  eafily  evinced,  if 
there  were  occasion.  But  there  is  in  reality  no 
occafion,  fince  there  is  no  fuch  evidence  of  the 
facts  as  can  juftly  intitle  them  to  our  notice.  Let  it 
be  remembered,  that,  in  the  fourth  feclion  of  the  firfi: 
part,  it  was  mown,  that  there  is  the  greateft  dif- 
parity,  in  refoect  of  evidence  ,  betwixt  miracles  per- 
formed in  proof  of  a  religion  to  ^eftablifhed,  and  in 
csrJradifJicn  to  opinions  generally  received  ;  and  mi- 
racles performed,  on  the  contrary,  in  fupport  of  a 
religion  already  eftablifhed,  and  in  confirmation  of  opi- 
nions generally  received ;  that,  in  the  former  cafe, . 
there  is  the  ftrongefi:  perfumption/*r  the  miracles,. 
in  the  latter  again/}  them.  Let.it  alfo  be  remem- 
bered, that  in  the  preceding  feclion  it  was  fhown, 
that  the  religion  of  the  Bible  is  the  only  religion  ex- 
tant, which  claims  to  have  been  ufhered  into  the 
world  by  miracles ;  that  this  prerogative  neither  the 
Pagan  religion,  the  Mahometan,  nor  the  Roman- 
Catholic,  can,  with  any  appearance  of  reafon,  ar- 
rogate ;  and  that,  by  confequence,  there  is  one  of 
the  ftrongefi:  prcfumptions  poflibley^r  the  miracles  of 
the  gofpel,  which  is  not  only  wanting  in  the  miracles 
of  other  religions,  but  Which  is  contrafted  by  the 
ftrongeft  prefumption  poflible  againji  thefe  miracles. 
And  tho'  this  prefumption  fhould  not,  in  all  cafes, 

be 


Sect;.  2.      Gospel  fully  Attested.  107 

be  accounted  abfolutely  infuperable,  we  muft  at  leafl: 
fay,  it  gives  an  immenfe  fuperiority  to  the  proofs  of 
Chriftianity.  'Tvvere  an  endlefs  and  a  fruitlefs  talk 
to  canvafs  particularly  the  evidence  of  all  the  pre- 
tended miracles  either  of  Paganifm  or  Popery,  (for 
on  this  head  Mahometifm  is  much  more  modeft)  but 
as  the  author  hath  felecled  fome,  which  he  confiders 
as  the  beft  attefted,  of  both  religions,  thefe  (hall  be 
examined  feverally  in  the  two  fubfequent  fectiOns. 
From  this  examination  a  tolerable  judgment  may  be 
formed  concerning  the  pretentions  of  thefe  two  fpe- 
cies  of  fuperftition, 

But  from  what  hath  been  faid,  it  is  evident,  that 
the  contrariety  which  the  author  pretends  to  have  dif- 
covered  in  the  miracles  faid  to  have  been  wrought, 
as  he  expreffeth  it,  in  different  religions,  vanifhes 
entirely  on  a  clofe  infpe&ion.  He  is  even  fenfible 
of  this  himfelf;  and,  as  is  cuftomary  with  orators, 
the  more  inconclufive  his  reafons  are,  fo  much  the 
more  pofitive  are  his  affertions.  "  This  argument," 
fays  he,  "  may  appear  over  fubtile  and  refined  ;" 
indeed  fo  fubtile  and  refined,  that  it  is  invifible  altoge- 
ther ;  "    but is  not  in  reality  different  from    the 

"  reafoning  of  a  judge,  who  fuppofes  that  the  credit 
"  of  two  witnefles  maintaining  a  crime  againfl  any  one, 
"  is  deftroyed  by  the  teftimony  of  two  others,  who 
"  affirm  him  to  have  been  two  hundred  leagues  di- 
"  ftant,  at  the  fame  inftant  when  the  crime  is  faid 
"  to  have  been  committed."  After  the  particle  but, 
with  which  this  claufe  begins,  the  reader  naturally 
expects  fuch  an  explication  of  the  argument,  as  will 
convince  him,  that   tho'  fubtile  and  refined,    it  hath 

Jolldiiy 


i©S  The  Miracles  of  thf         Part  II. 

folidity  and  Jlrength.  Inftead  of  this,  he  hath  only  the 
author's  word  warranting  it  to  be  good  to  all  in- 
tents :  "  But  is  not  in  reality  different,"  CSV.  The  a- 
nalogy  between  his  example  and  his  argument  feemsto 
be  but  very  diftant ;  I  fhall  therefore,  without  any 
comment,  leave  it  with  the  reader  as  I  find  it. 

Thus  it  appears,  that,  for  aught  the  author  hath 
as  yet  proved,  no  miracles  recorded  by  hiftorians  of 
other  religions  are  fubverfive  of  the  evidence  arifing 
from  the  miracles  wrought  in  proof  of  Chriftianity, 
or  can  julily  be  confidered  as  contrary  teftimony. 

SECTION      IV. 

Examination  of  the  Pagan  miracles   mentioned  by  Mr 
Hume. 

SHould  one  read  attentively  the  EJJay  on  Miracles? 
and  confider  it  folely  as  a  philofophical  difquifition 
on  an  abftract  queftion,  like  mod  of  the  other  pieces 
in  the  fame  collection  ;  he  could  not  fail  to  wonder, 
what  had  induced  the  author  fo  fuddenly  to  change 
fides  in  the  debate,  and,  by  doing  fo,  to  contradict 
himfelf  in  terms  the  mod  exprefs.  Does  he  not,  in 
the  latter  part  of  that  performance,  as  warmly  con- 
tend for  the  reality  of  fome  miracles,  as  he  had  plead- 
ed in  the  former  part,  for  the  impijpbiliiy  of  all  ?  'Tis 
true,  he  generally  concludes  concerning  thofe,  that 
they  are  *  grofs  and  palpable  faifehoods.'  But  this 
ferves  only  to  render  his  conduct  the  more  myfterious, 
as  that  conclusion  is  always  preceded  by  an  attempt 
to  evince,  that  we  have  the  greatest  reafon  to  receive 
them  as  *  certain  and  infallible  truths.'  Nay,  fo  en- 
tirely 


Se£t.  4.       Gospel  fully  Attested.  109 

tirely  doth  his  zeal  make  him  forget  even  his  moft  po- 
fitive  affertions,  (and  what  inconfiftencies  may  not 
be  dreaded  from  an  excefs  of  zeal!)  that  he  ihows  mi- 
nutely we  have  thofe  very  evidences  for  the  miracles 
he  is  pleafed  to  patronize,  which,  he  had  ftrcnuouf- 
]y  argued,  were  not  to  be  found  in  fupport  of  any 
miracles  whatever. 

11  There  is  not  to  be  found/'  he  affirms*,  "  in  all 
'*  hiftory,  a  miracle  attefted  by  a  fufficient  number 
11  of  men,  of  fuch  unqueftioned  good  fenfe,  educa- 
<4  tion,  and  learning,  as  to  fecure  us  againft  all  delu- 
*'  fion  in  themfelves  ;  of  fuch  undoubted  integrity. 
*<  as  to  place  them  beyond  all  fufpicion  of  any  defign 
u  to  deceive  others ;  of  fuch  credit  and  reputation  in 
M  the  eyes  of  mankind,  as  to  have  a  great  deal  to 
"  lofe,  in  cafe  of  being  detected  in  any  falfehoodj 
*'  and  at  the  fame  time  attesting  facts  performed  in 
11  fuch  a  public  manner,  and  in  fo  celebrated  a  part 
i(  of  the  world,  as  to  render  the  detection  unavoid- 
•■  able."  We  need  only  turn  over  a  few  pages  of 
the  EJJ'ay,  and  we  fhall  find  the  author  taking  great 
pains  to  convince  us,  that  all  thefe  circumftances 
concurred  in  fupport  of  certain  miracles,  which,  not- 
withfrandiog  his  general  refoluticn,  he  has  thought  fit 
to  honour  wTith  a  very  particular  attention. 

He  has  not  indeed  told  us  bow  many  witnefies,  in 
his  way  of  reckoning,  will  conftitute  *  a  fufficient 
number ;'  but  for  foms  miracles  which  he  relates, 
he  gives  us  clouds  of  wi  merles,  one  cloud  fucceeding 
another:  for  the  Molinifts,  who  tried  to  difcredit 
them,  "  foon  found  themfelves  overwhelmed  by  a 
V  cloud  of  new  witnefles,  one  hundred  and  twenty 
K  «in 

■*  p.  183. 


no  The  Miracles  of  the         Part  II. 

"  in  number*."  As  to  the  character  of  the  wit- 
neffes,  fi  moft  of  them  were  perfons  of  credit  and 
<f  fubftance  in  Paris  t;"  again,  thofe  miracles  u  were 
u  attefted  by  witneffes  of  credit  and  diftin£tion,  be- 
*'  fore  judges  of  unqueftioned  integrity^;  "  and, 
<*  they  were  proved  by  witneffes,  before  the  official- 
if  ty  or  bilhop's  court  of  Paris,  under  the  eyes  of 
M  Cardinal  Noailles,  whofe  character  for  integrity 
w  and  capacity  was  never  contended  even  by  his  ene- 
u  mies  § ;"  again,  "  the  fecular  clergy  of  France, 
w  particularly  the  rectors  or  cures  of  Paris,  give  tef- 
H  timony  to  thefe  impoftures,  than  whom  no  clergy 
M  are  more  celebrated  for  ftridtnefs  of  life  and  man- 
ners jj."  Once  more,  one  principal  witnefs,  •'  Man- 
u  fieur  de  Montgeron,  was  counfellor  or  judge  of 
"  the  parliament  of  Pari?,  a  man  of  figure  andcha- 
"  rafter*;"  another  "no.lefs  a  man  than  the  Due 
<(  de  Chatiilon,  a  Duke  and  Peer  of  France,  of  the 
M  higheft  rank  and  family  ••"  'Tis  ftrange,  if  credit, 
and  jubjlancey  and  diflincliorit  and  capacity*  are  not 
fufficient  fecurities  to  us,  that  the  witneffes  were  not 
*  themfelves  deluded  ;'  "'tis  ftrange,  if  unconiejied  inte- 
grity t  and  eminentjiriclnefs  of  life  and  manners,  can- 
not remove  ■  all  fufpicion  of  any  defign  in  them  to  de- 
ceive others  ;;  'tis  ftrange,  if  one  who  was  counfellor 
of  the  parliament  of  Paris,  a  man  of  figure  and  cha- 
f  rcter,  and  if  another  was  a  Duke  and  Peer  of  France, 
of  the  higheft  rank  and  family,  had  not  «  a  great  deal 

to 

*  p.  197.  in  the  note.  f  ib  J  p.  197. 

§  p.    196.    in    the  note:  ||   p.  199.   in   the  note 

^  p.  295.  in  the  note.  *  p.  199.  in  the  note. 


Se£.4«       Gospel  fully  attested.  hi 

*  to  lofe,  in  cafe  of  being  detected  in  any  falfehood  :' 
nay,  and  if  all  thofe  witneffes  of  credit  and  difiinclion^ 
"  had  not  alfo  a  great  deal  to  lofe  ;'  **  fince  the  Jefu- 
M  its,  a  learned  body,  fupported  by  the  civil  magif- 
"  trate,  were  determined  enemies  to  thofe  opinions, 
"  in  whofe  favour  the  miracles  were  faid  to  have 
"  bsen  wrought*;"  and  fince  "  Morfieur  Herault, 
M  the  lieutenant  de  police,  of  whofe  great  reputation, 
"  all  who  have  been  in  France  about  that  time,  have 
"  heard  ;  and  whofe  vigilance,  penetration,  activity, 
"  and  extenfive  intelligence,  have  been  much  talked 
u  of;  fince  this  magifirate,  who  by  the  nature  of  his 
M  office  is  almoft  abfolute,  was  inverted  with  full 
»'  powers  on  purpofe  to  fupprefs  thefe  miracles,  and 
*'  and  frequently  feized  and  examined  the  witnefles 
11  and  fubjecls  of  them  ;  though  he  could  never  reach 
"  any  thing  fatisfa&ory  againft  themt."  As  to  the 
only  remaining  circumftance,  'their  being  performed 

*  in  a  public  manner,  and  in  a  celebrated  part  of  the 
'  world,'  this  concurred  alfo.  They  were  perform- 
ed, we  are  told,  "  in  a  learned  age,  and  on  the  moil 
•'  eminent  theatre  that  is  now  in  the  world  %  ;"  be- 
sides "  twenty-two  ie&ors  or  cures  of  Paris,  with  in- 
'*  finite  earneftnefs,  preffed  the  Archbiihop,  an  ene- 
*4  my  to  the  Janfenifts,  to  examine  thofe  miracles, 
"  which  they  afTert  to  be  known  to  the  whole  world, 
and  indifputably  certain  §." 

Thus  the  efTayift  hath  laid  us  under  the  difagreeable 
necefllty  of  inferring,  that  he  is  either  very  rafh  in  his 

general 

*  P-  *95-  tp-  X97-  in  the  note.  i  p.  175. 

§  f  p.  196.  in  the  note. 


The  Miracles   of  the         Part  II. 

general  aiTertions,  or  ufeth  very  great  amplification 
in  his  particular  narrations.  Perhaps  in  both  infer- 
ences, we  fhall  find,  upon  inquiry,  that  there  is  fome 
truth.  In  his  Hifory  of  Great  Britain,  he  gives  us 
notice*,  that  he  addreffed  himfelf  "  to  a  more  diitant 
"  pofterity,  than  will  ever  be  reached  by  any  local 
"  temporary  theology."  Why  did  he  not  likewife,  in 
writing  the  Effhys,  entertain  this  grand  idea  ?  It 
would  have  been  of  ufe  to  him.  It  would  have  pre- 
vented his  falling  into  thole  inconfillencies,  which  his 
too  great  attention  and  antipathy  to  what  he  calls  a 
local  temporary  theology,  only  could  occafion  ;  and  which, 
when  that  theology,  according  to  his  hypothecs, 
fhall  be  extinct,  and  when  all  our  religious  controver- 
fies  (hall  be  forgotten,  muff  appear  unaccountable  and 
ridiculous.  People  will  not  then  have  the  means  of 
discovering,  what  is  fo  obvious  to  us  his  contempo- 
raries, that  he  only  afUimes  the  appearance  of  an  ad- 
vocate for  fome  miracles,  which  are  difbelieved  by  the 
generality  of  Proteftants,  his  countrymen,  in  order^ 
by  the  comparifon,  to  vilify  the  miracles  of  facred  writ, 
which  are  acknowledged  by  them. 

Eut  to  defcend  to  particulars,  I  fhall  begin  with 
confidering  thofe  miracles,  for  which  the  author  is 
indebted  to  the  ancient  Pagans.  Firft,  in  order  to 
convince  us,  how  eafy  a  matter  it  is  for  cunning  and 
impudence  to  impofe  by  falfe  miracles  on  the  credulity 
%\  barbarians,  he  introduces  the  ftory  of  Alexander  of 

Pont  us 

*  James  I.  cbap.  3, 


Sect.  2.       Gospel  fully  Attested.  113 

Pontus  t.  The  juflnefs  of  the  account  he  gives  of 
this  impoftor  from  Lucian,  I  (hall  not  difpute.  But 
that  it  may  appear,  how  little  the  Chriftian  religion 
is  affe&ed  by  this  relation,  notwithstanding  fome  infi- 
nuationshe  hath  intermixt  with  it,  I  (hall  make  the 
following  remarks. 

It  is  of  importance  to  know,  what  was  the  pro- 
feffion  of  this  once  fo  famous,  tho'  now  forgotten 
Paphlagonian.  Was  he  a  publifher  of  ftrange  gods  ? 
No*.  Was  he  the  founder  of  a  new  fyftem  in  religi- 
on ?  No.  What  was  he  then  ?  He  was  no  other 
than  a  profefTed  fortune-teller.  What  were  the  arts 
by  which  he  carried  on  this  gainful  trade  ?  The  tf- 
fayifl  juftly  remarks,  that  *  it  was  a  wife  policy  in 
1  him  to  lay  the  firft  fcene  of  hisimpofturesina  coun- 

*  try,  where  the  people  were  extremely  ignorant  and 

*  flupid,  and  ready  to  fwallow  the  groilelt  delufion.' 
For,  "  had  Alexander  fixed  his  refidence  at  Athens, 
"  the  philofophers  of  that  renowned  mart  of  learn- 
"  ing,  had  immediately  fpread  thro'  the  whole  Roman 
•*■  empire  their    (mic  of  the   matter  ;  which,  being 

K  3  "  fupportcd 

f-  p   188.  &c. 

*  The  learned  and  judicious  author  of  the  Obfcrvaiions  on  the 
converfion  and  apojllejbip  of  Saint  Paul,  hath  inadvertantly  faid  of 
Alexander,  that  he  introduced  a  ne-w gtd  into  Pontus.  The  truth 
is,  he  only  exhibited  a  reproduction  of  Efculapius,  a  well  known 
deity  in  thofe  parts,  to  whom  he  gave  indeed  the  nezv  name  Glv- 
con.  In  this  there  was  nothing  unfuitable  to  the  genius  of  the 
mythology.  Accordingly,  we  do  not  find,  that  either  the 
prielts,  or  the  people,  were  in  the  leaft  alarmed  for  the  religion 
of  the  country,  or  charged  Alexander  as  an  innovator  in  religious 
matters.  On  the  contrary,  the  great  «ft  enemies  he  had  to  en- 
counter, were  not  the  religjwmifb,  but  the  htitudinarians. 


ii4  The  Miracles  of  the         Part II. 

"  fupported  by  fo  great  authority,  and  difplayed  by 
tl  all  the  force  of  reafon  and  eloquence,  had  entirely 
"  opened  the  eyes  of  mankind."     I  (hall  beg  leave 
to  remark  another  inftance  of  good  policy  in  him. 
He  attemped  not  to  gain  the  veneration  of  the  multi- 
tude by  oppofing,    but  by   adopting   their  religious 
prejudices.     His  whole  plan  of  deceit  was  founded 
in  the  eftablifhed  fuperftition.     The  author  himfelf 
will  acknowledge,  it  would  have  been  extreme  folly 
in   him  to  have  a&ed  otherwife:  and  all  the  world, 
I  believe,  will  agree  in  thinking,  that,  in  that  cafe, 
he  could  not   have  had   the  fmalleft  probability  of 
uicceis.     What   were    the  miracles  he  wrought  ?   I 
know  of  none,  unlefs  we  will  dignify  with  that  name, 
iome  feats  of  legerdemain,  performed  moftly  by  can- 
dle light ;  which,  in  many  parts  of  Europe,  we  may 
daily  fee  equalled,  nay  far  exceeded,  by  thofe  of  mo- 
dern juglers.     Add  to  thefe  fome  oracles  he  pronoun- 
ced, concerning  which,  if  we  may  form  a  judgment 
from  the  account  and  fpecimen  given  us  by  Lucian, 
we  mould  conclude,  that,  like  other   Heathen  ora- 
cles, they   were  generally  unintelligible,   equivocal, 
or  falfe.     Before  whom  did  he  exhibit  his  wonders  ? 
Before  none,  if  he  could  help  it,  that  were  not  tho- 
rough believers  in  the  popular  fyftem.     His  noctur- 
j  al    myiteries  were  always   introduced    with  an   a- 
vaunt  to  Jtheljis,   Chrijlians,  and  Epleurians'.  and' 
indeed  it  was  dangerous  for  any  fuch  to  be  prefent 
at  them.     Mr  Hume  fays,  that,    "  from   his  igno- 
M  ran*  Paphlagonians,  he  was  enabled  to  proceed  to 
H  the  inlifting  of  votaries  among  the  Grecian  philo- 
"  fophers."      On   what  authority  he  advances  this, 
I  have  not  been  able  16  difcover.     He  adds,  "  and 

u  men 


Sect.  4-      Gospel  fully  Attested.  115 

11  men  of  the  mod  eminent  rank  and  diftindtion  in 
Rome."  Lucian  mentions  one  man  of  rank,  Ru- 
tilianus,  among  the  votaries  of  the  prophet  \  an  ho- 
neft  man  he  calls  him,  but  at  the  fame  timi  the 
weakeft,  the  mod  fuperftitious  that  ever  lived.  As 
to  the  military  expedition,  which  one  would  imagine 
from  Mr  Hume's  expreilien,  the  Emperor  had  re- 
folved  on,  in  confequence  of  the  encouragement  which 
the  delufive  prophecies  of  this  impoftor  gave  him,  we 
find,  on  the  contrary,  it  was  undertaken,  before  thofe 
prophecies  were  uttered.  But  further,  Did  Alexan- 
der rifk  any  thing  in  afiuming  the  character  of  the 
interpreter  of  Esculapius?  Did  he  lofe,  or  did  he 
fuffer  any  thing  in  defence  of  it  ?  Quite  the  reverfe. 
He  enriched  himfelf  by  this  mofr  ingenious  occupa— 
toin.  I  ffiall  fay  nothing  of  the  picture  which  Luci- 
an gives  of  his  morals,  of  the  many  artifices  which 
he  ufed,  or  of  the  atrocious  crimes  which  he  perpe- 
trated. It  mult  be  owned,  that  the  principal  fcope 
for  calumny  and  detraction  is  what  concerns  the  pri- 
vate life  and  moral  character.  Lucian  was  an  ene- 
my, and,  by  his  own  account,  had  received  the  high- 
eft  provocation.  But  I  avoid  every  thing,  on  this 
topic,    that  can  admit  a  queftion. 

Where,  I  would  gladly  know,  lies  the  refem- 
blance  between  this  impoftor  and  the  firft  publiihers 
of  the  gofpel  r  Every  one,  on  the  molt  fuperfkial  re- 
view, may  difcover,  that,  in  all  the  material  circum- 
(tances,  they  are  perfect:  contrails.  There  appears 
not  therefore  to  be  great  danger  in  the  poignant  re- 
mark with  which  the  author  concludes  this  relation  : 
u  TW  much  to  be  w 'fried,  it  does  not  always  hap- 
*«  pen,  that  tv^ry  Alexander  meets  with  a  Lucian  rea- 

"  dy 


u6  The  Miracles  of  the         Part  II. 

"  dy  to  expofe  and  detect  his  impoftures."  Left 
the  full  import  of  this  emphaucal  claufe  lhould  not 
be  apprehended,  the  author  hath  been  ftill  more  ex. 
plicit  in  the  note  :  "It  may  here  perhaps  be  ob- 
"  je&ed,  that  I  proceed  rafhly,  and  form  my  no- 
"  tions  of  Alexander,  merely  from  the  account  gi- 
**  ven  of  him  by  Lucian,  a  profefTed  enemy.  // 
u  were  indeed  to  be  wifhed,  that  fome  of  the  accounts 
11  publifhed  by  his  followers  and  accomplices  had  re- 
"  mained  The  oppofition  and  contrail  betwixt  the 
"  character  and  conduct  of  the  fame  man,  as  drawn 
u  by  a  friend  or  an  enemy,  is  as  ftrong,  even  in 
"  common  life,  much  more  in  thefe  religious  mat- 
u  ters,  as  that  betwixt  any  two  men  in  the  world, 
"  betwixt  Alexander  and  St  Paul  for  inftance." 
Who  can  forbear  to  lament  the  uncommon  diftrefs of 
an  author,  obliged  every  moment  to  recur  to  unavail- 
ing willies?  Mr  Hume,  however,  in  this  calamitous 
fituation,  folaceth  himfelf,  as  well  as  he  can,  by 
fuppofing  what  he  cannot  affert.  He  fuppofeth 
what  would  have  been  the  cafe,  if  his  v\ifhes  could 
have  been  gratified  ;  and  artfully  infinuates,  in  this 
manner  to  his  readers  ;  that  if  we  had  the  characler 
and  conduct  of  the  apoflle,  delineated  by  as  able  an 
enemy  as  Lucian,  we  lhould  find  the  portrait  as  ugly 
as  that  of  Alexander. 

Let  us  then  for  once  fuppofe,  what  the  author  fo 
ardently  wifhes,  that  fuch  an  enemy  had  undertaken 
the  hiftory  of  Paul  of  Tarfus.  I  can  eafily  conceive 
what  a  different  reprefentation  we  ihould,  in  that 
cafe,  have  had,  of  the  mental  endowments  and  mo- 
ral difpofition,  as  well  as  of  the  inducements  and 
▼iewsofthis  Chriftian  miffionary.     I    can  conceive 

alio- 


Seel.  4.      Gospel  fully  Attested.  117 

alfo,  that  both  his  actions  and  difcourfes  might  have 
been  ftrangely  disfigured.  But  if  the  biographer  had 
maintained  any  regard,  I  fay  not,  to  truth,  but  to 
probability;  there  are  fome  things,  we  may  be  ab- 
solutely certain,  he  would  never  have  advanced. 
He  would  not  furely  have  faid  of  Paul,  that  he  was 
by  profeffion  a  cunning  man,  or  conjurer;  one  who, 
for  a  little  money,  either  told  people  their  fortunes, 
or  taught  them  how  to  recover  flolen  good?.  He 
would  not,  I  fuppofe,  have  pretended,  that  where  - 
ever  the  apoftle  went,  he  flattered  the  fuperftition  of 
the  populace,  in  order  to  gain  them,  and  founded  all 
his  pretenfions  on  the  popular  fyftem.  He  would 
not  have  alledged,  that  Paul  inricked  himfelf,  or  that 
he  could  ever  have  the  profpect  of  inriching  himfelf, 
by  his  vocation  ;  nay,  or  that  he  rifked  nothing,  or 
fufFered  nothing,  by  it.  Pie  could  not  have  faid  con- 
cerning him,  that  he  declined  the  audience  or  fcrutiny 
of  men,  whofe  opinions  in  religion  differed  from 
thofe  on  which  his  million  was  founded.  He  durft 
not  have  imputed  to  him  the  wife  policy  of  laying  the 
fcene  of  his  impoftures,  only  where  ignorance,  bar- 
barifm,  and  flupidity  prevailed :  as  it  is  unqueftiona- 
ble,  that  our  apoftle  traverfed  great  part,  not  only  of 
Afia  Minor,  but  of  Macedonia,  and  Achaia  ;  fixed 
his  residence  eighteen  months  at  Corinth,  a  city  not 
lefs  celebrated  for  the  polite  arts,  than  for  its  popu- 
loufnefs  and  riches;  preached  publicly  at  Athens 
before  the  Stoics  and  the  Epicureans,  and  even  be- 
fore the  Areopagus,  the  moit  venerable  judicature  in 
Greece  ;  not  afraid  of  what  the  philofophers  of  that 
renowned  mart   of  learning,  might  fpread  through 

the 


1 18  The  Miracles  of  the        Part  II. 

the  whole  Roman  empire,  concerning  him  and  his 
doclrine  ;  nay,  and  laftly  preached  at  Rome  itfelf, 
the  miftrefs  and  metropolis  of  the  world. 

The  reader  will  obferve,  that,  in  this  companion, 

I  have  fhunned  every  thing  that  is  of  a  private,  and 
therefore  of  a  dubious  nature.  The  whole  is  found- 
ed on  fuch  actions  and  events  as  were  notorious  ; 
which  'tis  not  in  the  power  of  contemporary  hifto- 
rians  to  falfify  ;  fuch  with  regard  to  Alexander, 
as  a  votary  could  not  have  difTembled;  fuch  with 
regard  to  Paul,  as  an  enemy  durft  not  have  denied. 
We  are  truly  indebted  to  the  eftayift,  who  intending 
to  exhibit  a  rival  to  the  apoftle,  hath  produced  a 
character  which,  we  find  on  making  the  comparifon, 
ferves  only  for  a. foil.  Truth  never  fhines  with  grea- 
ter luflre,  than  when  confronted  with  falfehood. 
The  evidence  of  our  religion,  how  ftrong  foever, 
appears  not  fo  iitefiftibly,  confidered  by  itfelf,  as- 
when  by  comparifon  we  perceive,  that  none  of  thofe 
artifices  and  circumftances  attended  its  propagation, 
which  the  whole  courfe  of  experience  fhows  to  be 
nccelTary  to  render  impofture  fuccefsful. 

The  next  topic  on  which  the  ingenious  author 
hath  beftowed  fome  flourifhes,  is  the  miracle 
"  which  Tacitus  reports  of  Vefpafian,  who  cured  a 
"  blind  man  in  Alexandria,  by  means  of  his  fpittle, 
"  and  a  lame  man  by  the  mere  touch  of  his  foot,  in 
"  obedience  to  a  vifion  of  the  god   Serapis,  who  had 

II  enjoined  them  to  have  recourfe  to  the  emperor,  for 
"  thefe  miraculous  and  extraordinary  cures  *."  The- 
(lory  he   introduces  with  informing  us,    that   it  is 

41  oae 

*  p.  292,  &c* 


Sfeft.  4-      Gospel  fully  Attested.  115 

M  one  of  the  beft  attefled  miracles  in  all  profane 
«'  hiftory."  If  fo,  it  will  the  better  ferve  for  a  fam- 
ple  of  what  may  be  expected  from  that  quarter. 
**  Every  circumftance,"  he  tells  us,  '*  feems  to  add 
<«  weight  to  the  teltimony,  and  might  be  difplayed  at 
**  large,  with  all  the  force  of  argu mem  and  eloquence, 
"  if  any  one  were  now  concerned  to  enforce  the 
"evidence  of  that  exploded  nnd  idolatrous  foper- 
M  ftition.5'  For  my  parr,  were  I  concerned  to  en- 
force the  evidence  of  that  exploded  and  idolatrous 
fuperftition,  I  mould  net  wilh  the  ftory  were  in  bet- 
ter hands  than  in  the  author's.  H^  is  by  no  means 
deficient  in  eloquence;  and  if  fometimes  there  appear 
a  deficiency  in  argument,  that  is  not  imputable  to 
him,  but  to  the  fubject,  which  cannot  furnifh  nim 
with  any  better:  and  tho'  I  do  not  fufpe€fc  him  to 
be  in  the  leaft  concerned  to  re-eftabliih  Paganifm, 
yet  'tis  well  known,  that  hatred  to  his  adverfary  may 
as  ftrongly  animate  an  advocate  to  exert  himfelf,  as 
affecUon  to  his  client. 

But  to  proceed  to  the  ftory  :  Firft,  the  author  pleads 
"  the  gravity,  folidiry,  age,  and  probity  of  fo  great 
"  an  emperor,  who,  thro'  the  whole  courfe  of  his 
"  life,  converfed  in  a  familiar  way  with  his  friends 
"  and  courtiers,  and  never  affefted  thofe  extraordina- 
'*  ry  airs  of  divinity  aflumed  by  Alexander  and  De- 
-"  metrius."  To  this  character,  the  juimefs  of  which 
I  intend  not  to  controvert,  I  lhall  beg  leave  to  add, 
what  is  equally  indubitable,  and  mtich  to  the  purpofe, 
that  no  emperor  thowed  aftrongcr  inclination  to  cor- 
roborate his  title  by  a  fan ct ion  of  the  gods,  than  the 
prince  of  whom  he  is  fpeaking.     This,   doubtlefs, 

he 


i2o  The  Miracles  of  the        Part  II. 

he  thought  the  more  necefTary  in  his  cafe,  as  he  was 
of  an  obfcure  family,  and  novvife  related  to  any  of 
his  predecefibrs.  How  fond  he  was  of  pleading  vift- 
Qtis,  and  prejages,  and  auguries,  in  his  favour,  all  the 
world  knows  *. 

The  author  adds,  "  The  hiftorian,  a  contempo- 
"  rary  writer,  noted  for  candour  and  veracity,  and 
"  withal  the  greateftand  moft  penetrating  genius  per- 
il  haps  of  all  antiquity,  and  fo  free  from  any  tenden- 
"  cy  to  fuperftition  and  credulity,  that  he  even  lies 
u  under  the  contrary  imputation  of  atheifm  and  pro- 
"  fanenefc."  This  would  fay  a  great  deal,  if  the  cha- 
racter of  the  hiftorian  were  of  any  moment  in  the 
queftion.  Doth  Tacitus  pretend  that  he  was  him- 
felf  a  wvitnefs  of  the  miracle  ?  No.  Doth  he  men- 
tion it  as  a  thing  which  he  believes?  No.  In  ei- 
ther cafe  I  acknowledge,  that  the  reputation  of  the 
relaler  for  candour  and  penetration,  muft  have  added 
weight  to  the  relation,  whether  confidered  as  his  tef- 
timony,  or  barely  as  his  opinion.  But  is  it  fair  to 
plead  the  veracity  of  the  writer  in  proof  of  every  po- 
pular rumour  mentioned  by  him  ?  His  veracity  is 
only  concerned  to  fatisfy  us,  that  it  was  actually  report- 
ed, as  he  relates  ;  or  that  the  attempt  was  made,  and 
the  miracle  pretended  ;  a  point  which,  I  prefume, 
nobody  would  have  difputed,  altho' the  authority  had 
been  lefs  than  that  of  Tacitus.  Indeed  the  hiftorian 
doth  not  fay  directly,  whether  he  believes  the  miracle 
or  not  ;  but  by  hi<  manner  of  telling  it,  he  plainly  in- 
finuates,  that  he  thought  it  ridiculous.  In  introdu- 
cing 

•  Au&orltas,  et  quafi  majeftas  quaedam,  utfcilicet  inopinat* 
et  adhuc  novo  principi  dcerat,  h*ec  quoque  accefiit.     Sueton 


Sect.  4.    Gospel  fully  Attested.  121 

cing  it,  he  intimates  the  utility  of  fuch  reports  to  the 
Emperor's  caufe.  "  By  which,"  fays  he,  u  the  fa- 
««  vour  of  heaven,  and  the  appointment  of  the  gods, 
«<  might  be  urged  in  fupport  of  his  title*.*  When 
he  names  the  god  Serapis,  as  warning  the  blind  man 
to  recur  to  Vefpafian,  he  adds,  in  evident  contempt 
and  derifion  of  his  godfhip,  "  Who  is  adored  above  all 
"  others  by  the  Egyptians,  a  people  addicted  to  fuper- 
11  ftition  t."  Again  he  fpeaks  of  the  emperor,  as  in- 
duced to  hope  for  fuccefs,  by  the  perfuafive  tongues 
of  flatterers  ±.  A  ferious  believer  of  the  miracle  would 
hardly  have  ufed  fuch  a  ftyle  in  relating  it.  But  to 
what  purpofe  did  he  then  relate  it  ?  The  anfweris 
eafy.  Nothing  could  be  more  chara£teriftic  of  the 
Emperor,  or  could  better  fhow  the  arts  he  had  recourfe 
to,  and  the  hold  which  flattery  had  of  him  5  nothing 
could  be  more  characleriftic  of  the  Alexandrians,  the 
people  amongft  whom  the  miracle  is  faid  to  have  been 
wrought. 

"  The  perfons,"  fays  the  effayift,  "  from  whofe 
"  temmony  he  related  the  miracle,  of  eftabliihedcha- 
"  racier  for  judgement  and  veracity,  as  we  may  well 
*'  fuppofe  ;  eye-witneiTes  of  the  fact,  and  confirming 
**  their  verdict,  after  the  Flavian  family  were  defpoiled 
"  of  the  empire,  and  could  no  longer  give  any  re- 
"  ward  as  the  price  of  a  lie."  Perfons  of  ejlablijhed 
character  for  judgment  and  veracity  I  Who  told  Mr 
Hume  fo  t  'Tvvas  not  Tacitus.  Ke  only  denomi- 
L  nates 

*   Queis  cceleftis  favor,  et  quxdam  in  Vefpafianum  inclinatio 
numinum  oftenderetur. 

I   Quern  dedita  fuperftitionibus  gens  ante  alios  colit. 
{  Vocibus  adulantium  in  fpem  induci. 


122  The  Miracles  of  the         Part  II. 

nates  them  in  general  *  :  °  They  who  were  prefent," 
and  "  a  crowd  of  byftanders."  The  author,  confci- 
ous  that  he  advances  this  without  even  the  ihadow  of 
authority,  hath  fubjoined,  in  order  to  palliate  the 
matter,  as  we  may  w:lljuppofe.  An  admirable  expe- 
dient for  fupplying  a  weak  piea,  with  thofe  conve- 
nient circumftanccs  that  can  give  it  flrength  !  When 
facls  fail,  which  is  not  feldom  the  cafe,  we  need 
but  apply  to  fuppofition,  whofe  help  is  always  near. 
But  if  this  be  allowed  to  take  the  place  of  argument. 
J  fee  no  reafon  why  I  may  not  avail  myfelf  of  the 
privilege  of  fuppofing,  as  well  as  the  author.  The 
witnelles  then,  I  will  fuppofe,  were  moftly  an  igno- 
rant rabble  :  but  I  wrong  my  caufe  ;  I  have  a  better 
foundation  than  fuppofal,  having  Tacitus  himfelf, 
and  all  antiquity  on  my  fide,  when  I  add  deeply  im- 
merfed  mfuperjiition,  particularly  attached  tothewor- 
fhip  of  Serapis,  and  keenly  engaged  in  fupport  of 
Vefpajian,  Alexandria  having  been  the  firlt  city  df 
note  that  publicly  declared  for  him.  Was  it  then 
matter  of  furprife,  thataftory,  which  at  once  foothed 
the  fuperftition  of  the  populace,  and  favoured  their  po- 
litical fchemes,  Inould  gain  ground  among  them  ? 
•Can  wejuflly  wonder,  that  the  wifer  few,  who  were 
not  deceived  mould  convive  at,  or  even  contribute  to 
promote  a  deceit,  which  was  highly  ufef ul  to  the  caufe 
wherein  themfelves  were  imbarked,  and  at  the  fame 
time  highly  grateful  to  the  many  ?  -Laftly,  can  we 
\><z  furprifed  that  any,  who,  for  [e\sn  and  twenty  years, 
"had,  from  motives  pfintereft,  and  ambition,  and  po- 
pularity, propagated  a  falfe-hood,  mould  not  afterwards 
be  willing  to  expofe  themfelves  as  liars  ? 

The 

-*    Qvi  interfucre. -Qv-as  aflabat  multitudo. 


Seel.  4.      Gospel  fully  Attested.  li^ 

The  author  finifhes  the  ftory  thus  :  "  To  which  if 
"  we  add  the  public  nature  of  the  facts  related,  it 
**  will  appear,  that  no  evidence  can  well  be  fuppofed 
11  flronger  for  fo  grofs  and  fo  palpable  a  falfehood." 
As  to  the  nature  of  the  facts,  we  are  told  by  Ta- 
citus, that  when  Vefpafian  confulted  the  phyiicians, 
whether  fuch  maladies  were  curable  by  human  art, 
they  declared*,  that  "in  the  one  the  power  of  fight 
"  was  not  extinct,  but  would  return,  were  the  ob- 
"  flacles  removed ;  that  in  the  other,  the  joints  had 
"  fuffered  fome  diflocation,  which  by  a  falutary  pref- 
41  fure  might  be  redreffed.''  From  this  account  we 
are  naturally  led  to  conclude,  that  the  diforders  were 
not  fo  confpicuous,  but  that  either  they  might  have 
been  feigned,  where  they  were  not ;  or  that  cures 
might  have  been  pretended,  where  none  were  per- 
formed. I  think  it  is  even  a  further  prefumption  of 
the  truth  of  this  conclufion,  that  Suetonius,  the  only 
other  Roman  hiftorian  who  mentions  the  miracle, 
(I  know  not  how  he  hath  been  overlooked  bv  Mr 
Hume)  differs  from  Tacitus,  in  the  account  he  gives 
of  the  lamenefs.  The  one  reprefents  it  as  being  in 
the  hand,  the  other,  as  in  the  leg  t, 

There  are  other  circumftances  regarding  this  ftory 
on  which  I  might  make  fome  remarks ;  but  fhall  for- 
bear, 

*  Huic  non  exefam  vim  luminis,  ct  redituram,  fi  peUerentur 
obftantia  :  illi  elapfos  in  pravum  artus,  fi  falubris  vis  adhibeatur? 
poffeintegrari. 

m  Manum  segcr.  Tacitus.  Debiii  crure.  Suetonius^ 
Mr  Hume,  in  the  laft  edition  of  the  EJfay  mentions  Suetonius, 
but  takes  no  notice  of  this  difference  between  his  account  and  tha& 
of  Tacitus. 


124  The  Miracles  of  the         Part  II. 

bear,  as  it  is  impoffible  to  enter  into  a  minute  dif- 
cuffion  of  particulars,  that  appear  but  trivial,  when 
confidered  feverally,  without  growing  tirefome  to  the 
bulk  of  readers.  I  mail  therefore  only  fubjoin  thefe 
fimple  questions.  Firji,  What  emperor  or  other 
potentate  was  flattered  in  his  dignity  and  pretenfions 
by  the  miracles  of  our  Lord  r  What  eminent  per- 
fonage  found  himfelf  interefted  to  fupport,  bv  his  au- 
thority end  influence,  the  credit  of  thefe  miracles  ? 
What  popular  fuperftition  or  general  and  rooted 
prejudices  were  they  calculated  to  confirm  !  Thefe 
two  circumflances,  were  there  no  other,  make  the 
greateft  odds  imaginable  betwixt  the  miracles  of 
Vespasian  and  thofe  of  Jesus  Christ. 

So  much  for  the  Pagan  miracles  mentioned  by 
the  author. 


SECTION      V. 

Examination  of  the  Popish  miracles  mentioned  by  Mr 
Hume. 

THE  author  foon  defcends  from  ancient  to  mo- 
dem times,  and  leaving  Papanifm,  recurs  to  Po- 
perj,  a  much  more  fruitful  fource  of  lying  wonders. 

The  firft  of  this  kind  he  takes  notice  of*,  is  a 
Spanifh  miracle  recorded  in  the  memoirs  of  Cardi- 
nal de  Relz.  The  ftory,  he  fays,  is  very  memorable, 
and   may  well  deferve  our  confideration.     "  When 

"  that 

t  P-  *93-    &c 


Set.  5.       Gospel  fully  Attested.  125 

"  that  intriguing  politician  fled  into  Spain,  to  avoid 
61  the  perfecution  of  his  enemies,  he  palled  thro'  Sara- 
"  gofTa  the  capital  of  Arragon  ;  where  he  was  mown 
"  in  the   cathedral  church,  a  man,  who  had  ferved 
"  twenty  years  as  a  door  keeper   of  the  church,  and 
"  was    well   known  to  every  body   in  town,    that 
H  had  ever  paid  their  devotions  at  that  cathedral. — 
"  He  had  been  for  fo  long  a  time  wanting  a  leg  ; 
u  but  recovered  that  limb,  by  the  rubbing  of  holy  oil 
"  upon  the  (rump  ;   and,  when  the  cardinal  examined 
u  it,  he  found  it  to  be  a  true  natural  leg,  like  the  other.''1 
Would  not  any  perfon  imagine,  from  the  lafl  words 
of  the  fentence,    that  the  cardinal    had  ordered  the 
man  to  put  oft  his  (hoes  and  (lockings,  that,  by  touch 
as  well  as  by  fight,  he  might  be  latisfied,  there  was 
no  artifice  ufed,  but  that   both   his  legs  confided  of 
genuine  flelh  and  bone  ?  Yet  the  truth  is,  his  Emi- 
nency  did  not  think  it  worth  while  to  examine  any 
one  circumlhnce  of  this    wonderful   narration,   but 
contented  himfelf  with  reporting  it  precifely  as  it  had 
beta   told    him.     His  words  literally   tranflated  are, 
•»  In  that  church  they  mowed  me  a  man,  whole  bu- 
"  ilnefs    it  was  to  light  the  lamp?,  of  which  they 
11  have  a  prodigious  number,  telling  me,  that  he  had 
««  been  ^n  feven  years  at  the  gate,  with  one  legon- 
m  ly.     I  favv  him  there  with  two  *."     Not  one  word 
of  trial  or  examination,  or  even  fo  much  as  a  fingle 
queftion  afked  on  the  fubjeft  ;  not  a  fyllable  of  his 
I>  3  finding 

f  L'on  m'y  montraun  homme,  qui  fcrvoit  a  allumcr  Ics   Ianj- 
pes,  qui   y  font  en  nombre  prodigieux  ;  et   i'on   me  dit,  qu'on 
l'y  avoit  vu  fept  ans  a  la  porte  de  cette  eglife,  avec  une  f< 
jambe.     je  l'y    vis  avec  deux.     Liv.  4.     Van  1654. 


126  The  Miracles  of  thf         Part  II. 

finding  the  leg  to  be  either  true  or  falfe,  natural  or 
artificial,  like  the  other  or  unlike.  I  have  a  better 
opinion  both  of  the  candour  and  of  the  good  fenfe  of 
Mr  Hume,  than  to  imagine,  he  would  have  deflgn- 
cdly  mifreprefented  this  ftory,  in  order  to  render  it 
fitter  for  his  purpofe.  I  believe  the  fourceof  this  er- 
ror hath  been  folely  the  trufting  to  his  memory  in 
the  relation  which  he  gave,  and  not  taking  the  trou- 
ble to  confult  the  paffage  in  the  memoirs.  This 
conjecture  appears  the  more  probable,  as  he  hath 
made  fome  other  alterations,  which  are  nowife  con- 
ducive to  his  defign  ;  fuch  as,  that  the  man  had  been 
feen  in  the  church  twenty  years  wanting  a  leg,  and 
that  he  was  a  door-keeper  \ whereas  the  memoir-writer 
fays  only /even  years,  and  that  he  was  one  who  light- 
ed the  lamps  * 

n  This  miracle  was  vouched,"  fays  the  author,  "by 
if  all  the  canons  of  the  church  ;  and  the  whole  com- 
•*  pany  in  town  were  appealed  to,  for  a  confirmati- 
"  on  of  the  fact,  whom  the  Cardinal  found,  by 
'«  their  zealous  devotion,  to  be  thorough  believers 
of  the  miracle."  'Tis  true,  that  the  company  in 
town  were  appealed  to,  by  thofe  ecclefiaftics  ;  but 
'tis  alio   true,  that  De  Retz,  by    his  own  account, 

feems 

f  Since  finifhing  this  trad,  I  have  feen  an  edition  of  Mr 
Hume's  eilays,  &c.  later  than  that  here  refered  to,  It  is  prin- 
ted at  London  1760.  I  muffc  do  the  author  the  juftice  1 1  ob- 
Ihat,  la  this  edition,  he  hath  corrected  the  miftake,  as 
to  the  cardinal's  examining  the  man's  leg,  of  which  he  only 
,c  fays,  I  he  cardinal  affures  us,  that  he  few  him  with  two  legs.** 
He  trill  calls  him  a  dmr-leefer,  and  fays,  that  he  had  fcrved 
twenty  years  in  this  capacity. 


Seel.  5.     Gospel  fully  Attested.  127 

feems  not  to  have  afked  any  man  a  queftion  on  the 
fubjecl:.  He  acknowledges  indeed,  that  an  anniver- 
fary  feftival,  inftituted  in  commemoration  of  the  mi- 
racle, was  celebrated  by  a  vaft  concourfe  of  people 
of  all  ranks. 

"  Here,"  continues  the  eflayift,  "  the  relater  was 
"  alfo  contemporary  to  the  fuppofed  prodigy,  of  an 
"  incredulous  and  libertine  character,  as  well  as  of 
"  great  genius."  But  of  what  weight,  in  this  affair, 
is  either  the  genius  or  the  incredulity  of  the  relater, 
fince,  by  Mr  Hume's  confeflion,  he  had  no  faith  in 
the  relation  ?  Strange  indeed  is  the  ufe  which  the 
eflayift  makes  of  this  circumftance  ! 

"  What  adds  mightily"  fays  he,  "  to  the  force  of 
"  the  evidence,  and  may  double  our  furprife  on  this 
"  occafion,  is,  that  the  cardinal  himfelf,  who  re- 
"  lates  the  ftory,  feems  not  to  give  any  credit  to  it." 
It  doth  not  in  the  leafl  furprife  me,  that  the  car- 
dinal gives  no  credit  to  this  relation  ;  but  I  am  be- 
yond meafure  furprifed,  that  Mr  Hume  fhould  repre- 
fent  this  circumftance  as  adding  ?nightily  to  the  force 
of  the  evidence.  Is  then  a  ftory  which  is  reported  by 
a  man  of  genius,  the  more  credible  that  he  doth  not 
believe  it  r  Or,  Is  it  the  more  incredible  that  he  doth  be- 
lieve it  r  What  would  the  author  have  faid,  if  the 
cardinal  had  told  us,  that  he  gave  credit  to  the  re- 
lation ?  Might  he  not,  in  that  cafe,  have  very  per- 
tinently pleaded  the  great  genius,  and  penetration, 
and  incredulity  of  the  relater,  as  adding  mightily  to 
the  force  of  the  evidence?  On  that  hypothefis,  he 
furely  might,  for  pretty  obvious  reafons.  Uncom- 
mon   penetration  qualifies  a  man  for  detecting  fraud  ; 

it 


128  The  Miracles  of  the        Part II. 

and  it  requires  evidence  greater  than  ordinary  to   fur- 
mount  incredulity.     The  belief  therefore  of  fuch   a 
perfon  as  the  cardinal,  who  had  not  only  the  means 
of  difcovering  an  impofture,  as  he  was  contemporary 
and  on  the  fpot,  but  the  ability  to  difcover  it,  as   he 
was  a  man  of  genius,  and  not  over-credulous  ;  his 
belief,  I  fay,    would   evidently  have   been  no  fmall 
prefumption  of  the  truth  of  the  miracle.     How  his 
difbelief  can  be  in  like  manner  a  prefumption  of   its 
truth,  is    to  me  incomprehenfible.      Ay  tut,  rejoins 
the  author,  "  as  he    feems  not    to   give    any  credit 
"  to  it,  he  cannot  be  fufpected  of  any  concurrence  in 
"  the  holy  fraud."     Very  well.     I  amfatisfied  that  a 
man's  testimony  is  the  more  to  be   regarded,  that, 
he  is    above  being   fufpe&ed  of  concurring   in  arty- 
fraud,   call  it  holy  or  unholy.     But   I   want  to  know 
why,   on  the  very  fame  account,  his  opinion    is  the 
lefs  to  be  regarded  r     For  my  part,  I  find  no  difficul- 
ty in  believing  every  article  of  the  narration  for  which 
the  cardinal  gives   his   teftimony :    notwithftanding 
this,  I  may  be  of  the  fame  opinion  with  him  ;  that 
the  account  given  by  the  dean  and  canons,  which  is 
their  teftimony,   not  his,  was  all  a  fiction.     But   it 
is  not  with  the  cardinal's  tejlimony  we-  are    here   con- 
cerned :  about  that  there  is  no  difpute.     It  is    with 
his  opinion.     Are  then   a  man's    fentiments  about   a 
matter  of  fa£t,  I  mull  infift  on  it,  the  lefs  worthy 
of  regard,  either  becaufe  he  is  a  man  of  genius,   and 
not  at  all  credulous,  or  becaufe  he  cannot  befufpecT- 
ed  of  any  concurrence  in  a  holy  fraud  ?  Are  they   the  ■ 
more  improbable  on  thefe   accounts?  The    elTayifr, 
when  he  reflects,  will  be  the  laft  man  in  the  world, 

that 


Se<ft.  5.      Gospel  fully  Attested.  129 

would  alFifr.  in  eftablifhing  a  maxim  fo  unfavora- 
ble, not  only  to  candour,  but  even  to  genius  and 
fcepticifm :  and  indeed  there  are  few,  if  any,  that 
would  be  greater  fufFerers  by  it  than  himfelf. 

But  leaving  this,  as  one  of  the  unfathomable 
depths  of  the  effay,  I  proceed  to  the  other  circum- 
ftances.  "  The  miracle,"  fays  the  author,  "  of  fo 
"  lingular  a  nature,  as  could  fcarce  admit  of  a  counter- 
"  feit."  He  did  well  at  leaft  to  ufe  the  word  Jcarce\ 
for  if  every  vifitant  was  as  little  de (irons  of  prying 
into  the  fecret,  as  the  cardinal,  nothing  could  be 
more  eafily  counterfeited  :  "  And  the  witnefles  very 
tf  numerous,  and  all  of  them,  in  a  manner,  fpecta- 
'*  tors  of  the  fact,  to  which  they  gave  their  teftimo- 
■•  ny."  By  theory  numerous  witnefles,  I  fuppofe  he 
means  the  whole  company  in  town,  who  were  ap- 
pealed to.  They  were  all,  in  a  manner,  fpe£tators 
of  the  fact.  What  precife  abatement  the  author 
intended  we  fhould  make,  from  the  fenfe  of  the 
word  fpeftators,  on  account  of  the  qualifying  phrafe, 
in  a  manner,  I  fhall  not  prefume  to  determine  ;  but 
fhall  obferve,  from  the  memoirs,  that  it  was  not  fo 
much  as  pretended  by  the  canons,  that  any  of  the 
citizens  had  feen  the  miracle  performed  ;  'twas  only 
pretended,  that  they  had  feen  the  man  formerly  at 
the  gate  of  the  church,  wanting  a  leg.  Nor  is  it 
alledged,  that  any  of  them  was  at  more  pains  in  ex- 
amining the  matter,  either  before  or  after  the  recove- 
ry of  the  leg,  than  the  cardinal  was.  They  were 
therefore  properly  no  fpeclators  of  the  fact.  The 
phrafe,  in  a  manner,  ought,  I  imagine,  to  have  been 
placed  in  the  end  of  the  fentence,  which  would  have 

run 


130  The  Miracles  of  the       Part  II. 

run  thus  :  "  to  which  they,  in  a  manner*  give 
"  their  teftimony  :"  for  no  direct,  teftimony  was 
either  afked  of  them,  or  given  by  them  ;  their  belief  is 
inferred  from  their  devotion. 

I  have  been  the  more  particular  in  my  remarks  on 
the  circumftances  of  this  ftory,  not  becaufe  there 
was  need  of  thefs  remarks:  for,  tho'  to  the  eflayiM 
the  relation  appeared  very  memorable,  to  me,  and,  I 
believe,  to  moil  people,  it  appears  very  trifling  \  but 
that  the  reader  might  have  this  further  fpecimen  of 
the  author's  talents  in  embelliuYing,  To  the  above- 
mentioned,  and  all  other  fuch  idle  tales,  this  fhort 
and  fimple  anfwer  will,  by  every  man  of  fenfe,  be 
thought  fufficient.  The  country  where  tie  miracle  is 
f aid  to  have  been  wrought,  is  Spain;  the  people  who 
propagated  the  faith  of  it,  were  the  clergy.  What 
comparifon,  in  point  of  credibility,  can  be  made  be- 
tween miracles,  which,  with  no  viiible  fupport  but 
their  own  evidence,  had  at  once  to  encounter,  and 
did  in  facl.  overcome  the  abhorrence  of  the  pried,  and 
the  tyranny  of  the  magiftrate,  the  infolence  of  the 
learned,  and  the  bigotry  of  the  fuperftitious :  what 
comparifon,  I  fay,  can  be  made  between  fuch,  and 
any  prodigies  faid  to  have  been  performed  in  a  coun- 
try, where  all  the  powers  of  the  nation,  fecular  and 
eccleliaftical,  the  literature  of  the  fchools,  fuch  as  it 
is,  and  the  prejudices  of  the  people,  confpire  in 
eftabli tiling  their  credit ;  a  country  funk  in  the  moft 
obdurate  fuperftition  that  ever  difgraced  human  na- 
ture*, a  country  where   the   awe   of  the   inquifition 

is 

*   This  perhaps  will  appear  to  feme  to  be  too  fevere  a  cenfure 
on  a  country  called  Cbriftian,  and  may  be  thought  to  reflcd  on 

ChrifUanity 


Se£t.  5.      Gospel  fully  Atteste-d.  131 

is  fo  great,  that  no  perfon,  whatever  be  his  fentiments, 
dares  mutter  a  fy liable  againfl  any  opinion  that  hath 
obtained  the  patronage  of  their  fpiritual  guides?  But 
that  I  may  not  be  accufed  of  prepoireflion,or  fufpected 
of  exaggerating,  I  fhall  only  give  the  fentiments  of  two 
eminent  foreigners  (who  were  not  Proteftants,  and  may 
therefore  be  fuppofed  the  more  impartial)  concern- 
ing that  nation,  and  the  influence  which  the  holy  tri- 
bunal has  both  on  their  character  and  manners.  Vol- 
tarire*:f,  fpeaking  of  the  inquifition  as  ei'lablifhed  in 
Spain,  fays,  '*  Their  form  of  proceeding  is  an  infal- 
"  lible  way  to  deffroy  whomfoever  the  inquihtors 
<(  pleafe.     The   prifoners    are  not    confronted    with 

"the 

J€hriftianity  itfelf.  I  do  not  think  it  fairly  capable  of  fuch  a  con- 
icruction.  That  the  corruption  of  the  beft  things  produces  the 
worft,  hath  grown  into  a  proverb;  and,  on  the  moft  impartial 
inquiry,  I  do  not  imagine  it  will  be  found,  that  any  fpecies  of  ido- 
latry ever  tended  fo  directly  to  extirpate  humanity,  gratitude, 
natural  affeclion,  equity,  mutual  confidence,  good  faith,  and  c- 
very  amiable  and  generous  principle  from  the  human  breaft,  as 
that  grofs  pervernon  of  the  Chriftian  religion  which  is  tflablifhed 
in  Spain.  It  might  eafily  be  fhown,  that  the  human  facrifices  of- 
fered by  Heathens,  had  not  half  the  tendency  to  corrupt  the  heart, 
and  confequently  deferve  not  to  be  viewed  with  half  the  horror, 
-as  thofe  celebrated  among  the  Spaniards,  with  fo  much  pomp, 
and  barbarous  fefiivity,  at  an  auto  da  fe.  It  will  not  furely  be 
affirmed,  that  our  Saviour  reflected  on  the  Mofaic  inftitution,  or 
genuine  Judaifm,  when  he  faid,  Wo  unto  youfcrihet  and  Pbarifees 
hypocrites  \  for  ye  compafs  fea  and  hnd  to  mafre  one  profeyie,  and  when 
be  is  made,  YE  MAKE  bim  tivofold  more  the  child  of  hell  than  yourfeli>es. 
Yet  the  words  plainly  imlpy,  that  even  Pagans,  by  being  con- 
verted to  the  Judaifm  that  was  then  profeffed,  were  made  chil- 
dren of  hell,  and  confequently  corrupted,  infeead  of  being  re- 
formed.    See  Matth.  xxiii     15. 

f  EfTai  fur  1'hiftoire  generale,  chap.  118. 


132  The  Miracles  of  the        Part  II. 

"  the  informers;  and  there  is  no  informer  who  is 
"  not  liftened  to.  A  public  criminal,  an  infamous 
"  perfon,  a  child,  a  proftitute,  are  creditable  accu- 
11  fers.  Even  the  fon  may  depofe  againft  his  father  ; 
w  the  wife  againft  her  hufband.  In  fine,  the  prifo- 
"  ner  is  compelled  to  inform  againft  himfelf,  to  di- 
"  vine,  and  to  confefs,  the  crime  laid  to  his  charge  ; 
fi  of  which  often  he  is  ignorant.  This  procedure, 
<{  unheard  of  till  the  institution  of  this  court,  makes 
u  the  whole  kingdom  tremble.  Sufpicion  reigns  in 
tf  every  breaft.  Friendfhip  and  opennefs  are  at  an 
"  end.  The  brother  dreads  his  brother,  the  father 
t(  his  fon.  Hence  taciturnity  is  become  the  charac- 
*<  teriftic  of  a  nation  endued  with  all  the  vivacity 
'*  natural  to  the  inhabitants  of  a  warm  and  fruitful 
"  climate.  To  this  tribunal  we  muft  likewifs  im- 
"  pute  that  profound  ignorance  of  found  philofbphy, 
M  in  which  Spain  lies  buried,  whilft  Germany, 
"  England,  France,  and  even  Italy,  have  difcover- 
*'  ed  fo  many  truths,  and  enlarged  the  fphere  of  our 
u  knowledge.     Never  is    human  nature   fo  debafedf 

%i  as    when    ignorance   is  armed  with  power." 

u  'Tis  necefTary,"  fays  Mv>ntefquieu  *,  in  the  humble 
remonftrance  to  the  inquifitors  of  Spain  and  Portugal, 
**  that  we  advertife  you  of  one  thing  ;  'tis,  that  if 
**  any  perfon,  in  future  times,  mall  dare  afTert,  that 
*'  in  the  age  wherein  we  live,  the  Europeans  were 
*  civilized,  you  will  be  quoted  to  prove  that  they  were 
*'  barbarians,  and  the  idea  people  will  form  of  you, 
*'  will  be  fuch  as  will  difhonour  your  age,  and  bring 
"  hatred  on  all  your  contemporaries." 

I  COME 
•  De  1'  efprit  des  loix,  liv.  25.  chap.  13. 


Se&.  Gospel  fully  Attested.  133 

I  come  now  toconfider  the  miracles  faid  to  have 
been  performed  in  the  church-yard  of  Saint  Medard, 
at  the  tomb  of  Abbe  Paris.  On  thefe  the  author  hath 
expatiated  with  great  parade,  exulting,  that  he  hath 
found  in  them,  as  he  imagines,  what,  in  refpecl:  of 
of  number,  and  nature,  and  evidence,  may  outvie 
the  miracles  of  holy  writ.  Yet  mould  we  admit 
them  to  be  true,  how  they  can  be  confidered  as  proofs 
of  any  doctrine,  or  how  they  can  affecT:  the  evidence 
of  the  miracles  recorded  in  fcripture,  'twill  not  per- 
haps beeafy  10  difcover.  But  fetting  that  queftion  a- 
fide,  I  propofe  to  examine  their  evidence  ;  and  that, 
not  by  entering  into  a  particular  inquiry  concerning 
each  feparate  fact  mentioned  in  Montgeron's  collec- 
tion, as  fuch  an  inquiry  would  appear,  to  every  ju- 
dicious reader,  both  tedious  and  impertinent ;  but  by 
making  a  few  general  obfervations,  founded  in  unque- 
(honable  fact,  and  mofcly  fupported  even  by  the 
authority  of  Montgeron,  that  doughty  champion  of 
the  Janfenift  faint*. 

Firfi,  Let  it  be  remarked,  that  it  was  often  ob- 
jected by  the  enemies  of  the  faint,  and  fcarce  con- 
tradifted,  never  confuted,  by  his  friends,  that  the 
probations  at  his  fepulcher  produced  more  difeafes, 
than  they  cured.  The  ingenious  author  lately  quoted, 
in  the  account  he  gives  of  the  affairs  of  the  church  in 
the  ninth  century,  taking  occaiion  incidentally  to 
mention  the  miracles  of  the  Abbe,  fpeaks  of  this  cir- 
M  cumibnee 

*  The  character  of  his  book  is  very  juftly  and  very  briefly  ex- 
preffed  in  Lejiede  de  Louis  XIV.  in  thefe  words :  "  Si  ce  livre 
"  fubfiftait  un  jour,  et  que  les|autres  fuffent  per d us,  la  pofteritc 
**  croirait  que  notre  fiecle  a  ete  un  terns  de  barbarie,"    chap.  $g. 


134  The  Miracles  of  the         Part  II. 

cumftance,  as  a  thing  univerfally  known,  and  im- 
undeniable*.  "I  mould  not  take  notice,"  fays 
he,  u  of  an  epidemical  folly  with  which  the  people 
"  of  Dijon  were  feized  in  844,  occafioned  by  one 
"  Saint  Benignus,  who  threw  thofe  into  convulfions 
u  who  prayed  on  his  tomb ;  I  mould  not,  I  fay, 
11  mention  this  popular  fuperftition,  had  it  not  been 
"  furioufly  revived  in  our  days,  in  parallel  cir- 
"  cumfhnces.  It  feems,  as  if  the  fame  follies  were 
"  deftined  to  make  their  appearance,  from  time  to 
"  time,  on  the  theatre  of  the  world  :  but  good  fenfe 
*<  is  alfothe  fame  at  all  times;  and  nothing  fo  ju- 
"  dicious  hath  been  faid,  concerning  the  modern  mi- 
H  racles  wrought  on  the  tomb  of  I  know  not  what 
u  deacon  at  Paris,  as  what  a  bifhop  of  Lyons  faid, 
"  concerning  thofe  of  Dijon.  A  Jirange  faint  indeed, 
"  that  malms  thofe  who  pay  their  devoirs  to  him.  1 
"  fbould  think,  'miracles  ought  to  be  performed  for  the 
"  curing,  and  not  for  the  inflicting  of  maladies" 

Thefecond  obfervation  is,  That  the  inftances  of 
perfons  cured  are  extremely  few,  compared  with  the 
multitudes  of  people  in  diftrefs,  who  night  and  day 
attended  the  fepulchre,  imploring  in  vain  the  inter- 
cefiion  of  the  faint.  The  crowds  of  fick  and  infirm, 
who  flocked  to  the  tomb  for  relief,  were,  by  all  ac- 
counts, innumerable:  whereas  all  the  cures  which 
the  zealous  and  indefatigable  Montgeron  could  pro- 
cure vouchers  of,  amounted  only  to  Nine  *.     The 

author 

*  Eiiai  fur'Fhiftoire  penerale,  chap  21. 

f  It  mult  be  owned  that  the  author  of  the  Recueil  after-men- 
tioned, hath  prefented  us  with  a  much  greater  number  ;  but  let 
it  be  remarked,  that  that  author  doth  not  confine   hlmfeif  to  the 

cures 


Sect.  5-      Gospel  fully  attested.  135 

author  therefore  muft  be  underftood,  asfpeaking  with 
great  latitude,  when  he  fays,  "  There  furely  never  was 
u  fo  great  a  number  of  miracles  afcribed  to  one  per- 
**  fon,  as  thofe  which  were  lately  faid  to  have  been 
"  wrought  in  France,  upon  the  tomb  of  Abbe  Paris, 
«4  the  famous  Janfenitt,  with  whofe  fanctity  the 
"  people  were  fo  long  deluded*."  If  thou  [and*  of 
difeafed  perfons  had  applied  for  medicine  to  fome  ig- 
norant quack,  in  the  a  flu  ranee  of  his  extraordinary- 
abilities:  would  it  be  matter  offurprife  to  a  rea- 
sonable man,  that,  of  fo  many,  eight  or  nine  mould 
be  found,  whofe  diftempers  had  taken  a  favourable 
turn,  whiHl  they  were  ufing  his  fpecifics,  and  had 
thereby  given  countenance  to  the  delufion  r  I  think  it 
would  be  matter  of  furprife  that  there  were  fo  few. 

I  (hall  obferve,  thirdly,  That  impoflure  was  actually 
detected,  and  proved  in  feveral  inftances.  That  the 
reader  may  be  fatisned  of  this,  I  mud  intreat  him  to 
have  recourfe  to  the  Arch  i  (hop  of  Sens'  Pafioralin- 
ftrufiions  \  a  book  which  Mr  Hume  could  not,  with 
propriety,  take  any  notice  of,  having  pofitively  afTert- 
that  "  the  enemies  to  thofe  opinions,  in  whofe  fa- 
li  vour  the  miracles  were  faid  to  have  been  wrought, 
"  were  never  able  diftinctly  to  refute  or  detect 
"  them  +."  This  prelate,  on  the  contrary,  hath  not 
only  given  a  diftincT:  refutation  of  fome  of  thcfe  pre- 
tended 

cures  performed  openly  at  the  tomb  of  the  deacon  ;  he  gives  us  alfo 
thofe  that  were  wrought  in  the  private  chambers  cf  the  fick,  by 
virtue  of  his  relics,  by  images  of  him,  or  by  earth  brought  from 
under  his  monument.  Nor  is  the  collection  restricted  only  to  the 
cures  effected  by  the  faint ;  it  includes  alfo  the  judgments  inflicted 
by  him.  *  p.  105.  •<-  ib. 


136  The  Miracles  of  the        Part  II. 

tended  miracles,  but  hath  clearly  detected  the  deceit 
and  little  artifices  by  which  their  credit  was  fupport- 
ed.  I  intend  not  to  defcend  to  particulars,  and  ihall 
therefore  only  refer  the  reader  to  the  book  itfelf,  and 
beg  that  he  will  perufc  what  relates  to  the  cafes  of 
Jacques  Laurent  Menedrieu%,  Jean  Nivet,  Sieur  le 
Doulx,  Laleu,  Anne  Coulon,  the  widow  de  Lorme,  as 
well  as  Mademoijelle  le  Franc,  of  whom  the  efTayifl: 
hath  made  mention  in  a  note.  In  this  perufal,  the 
reader  will  obferve  the  lhameful  prevarications  of 
fome  Janfenift  witneffes,  for  whom  Mr  Hume 
would  fain  apologize,  by  telling  us  pleafantly,  they 
were  tamperd  with,  *.  I  ftiaH  only  add  on  this  head, 
that  the  detection  of  fraud  in  fome  indances,  juftly 
brings  fufpicion  on  all  the  other  indances.  A  man 
whom  I  know  to  have  lied  to  me,  on  feveral  occa- 
sions, I  (hall  fufpecl-,  on  every  orcafion,  where  I 
have  not  accefs  to  difcover,  whether  what  he  affirms 
be  true  orfalfe.  It  is  in  the  fame  way  we  judge  of 
the  fpirit  and  conduct  of  parties,  as  of  individuals. 

I  obferve,  fourthly,  That  all  the  cures  recorded 
by  Montgeron,  as  duly  attefted,  were  fuch  as  might 
have  been  efrecled  by  natural  means.  There  are  two 
kinds  of  miracles,  to  which  Mr  Hume  hath  alluded 
in  a  note,  tho'  he  does  not  directly  make  the  diftinc- 
tion.  One  is,  when  the  event,  confidered  by  itfelf, 
is  evidently  preternatural.  Of  this  kind  are,  raifing 
the  dead,  walking  on  water,  making  whole  the  mai- 
med ;  for  by  no  natural  caufes  can  thefe  effects  be 
produced.  The  other  kind  is,  when  the  event,  con- 
fidered by  itfelf,  is  natural,  that  is,  maybe  produced 
by   natural  caufes,    but  is  denominated  miraculous, 

on 

*  p.  197.  in  the  note, 


Seel.  5-       Gospel  fully  Attested.  137 

on  account  of  the  manner.  That  a  Tick  per  fen 
mould  be  reftored  to  health,  is  not,  when  coniideied 
fingly,  preternatural  ;  but  that  health  fhould  be  ref- 
tored  by  the  command  of  a  man,  undoubtedly  is- 
Let  us  hear  the  author  on  this  point  :  "  Sometimes 
4<  an  event  mayjvot,  in  itfelf,  feem  to  be  contrary  to 
i(  the  laws  of  n^^re,  and  yet,  if  it  were  real,  it 
11  might,  by  reafon  of  fome  circumftances,  be  deno- 
i(  minated  a  miracle;  becaufe,  infatt,  it  is  contra- 
"  ry  to  thefe  laws.  Thus,  if  a  perfon  claiming  a 
"  divine  authority,  mould  command  a  fick  perfon 
'*  to  be  well,  a  healthful  man  to  fall  down  dead, 
"  the  clouds  to  pour  rain,  the  winds  to  blow,  in 
"  fhort,  mould  order  many  natural  events,  which 
<l  immediately  follow  upon  his  command ;  thefe 
"  might  juftly  be  efteemed  miracles,  becaufe  they  are 
11  really,  in  this  cafe,  contrary  to  the  laws  of  nature. 
•'  For  if  any  fufpicion  remain,  that  the  event  and 
"  command  concurred  by  accident,  there  is  no  mi- 
"  racle,  and  no  tranfgreffjon  of  the  laws  of  nature. 
u  If  this  fufpicion  be  removed,  there  is  evidently  a 
M  miracle,  and  a  tranfgrellion  of  thefe  laws;  becaufe 
"  -nothing  can  be  more  contrary  to  nature,  than  that 
"  the  voice  or  command  of  a  man,  fhould  have  fuch 
*■  an  influence*."  From  what  hath  been  faid,  it 
appears,  that  thefe  two  kinds  of  miracles  muft  differ 
confiderably  in  refpect  of  evidence,  fince  the  latter 
naturally  gives  room  for  a  fufpicion,  which  is  ab- 
folutely  excluded  from  the  former.  In  the  former, 
when  the  fact  or  event  is  proved,  the  miracle  is  un- 
questionable. In  the  latter,  the  fact  may  be  proved 
and  yet  the  miracle  may  be  juftly  queftioned.  It 
M  3  therefore 

*  p.   181.  in  the  note. 


138  The  Miracles  of  the         Part  II. 

therefore  merits  our  attention,  that  all  the  miracles 
recorded  in  Montgeron's  collection,  were  of  the 
fecond  kind.  One  of  the  molt  confiderable  of  thofe 
cures,  was  that  of  Don  Alphonfo  de  Palacios,  who 
had  loft  one  eye,  and  was  diftrefTed  with  an  inflam- 
mation in  the  other.  The  inflamed  eye  was  cured, 
but  the  loft  eye  was  not  reftored  WI(Had  there  been  a 
reproduction  of  the  member  which  had  perifhed,  a 
fufficient  proof  of  the  fact,  would  have  been  a  fuf- 
fkient  proof  of  the  miracle.  But  as  the  cafe  waso- 
therwife,  the  fact  vouched  may  be  admitted,  without 
admitting  any  miracle.  The  cures  faid  to  have  been  per- 
formed on  thofe  patients  who  were  afflicted  with  para- 
lytic or  dropfical  diforders,  or  that  performed  on 
Louifa  Coirin,  who  had  a  tumour  on  her  breaft,  will 
not  appear  to  be  intitled  to  a  rank  in  the  firft  clafs. 
As  little  can  the  cure  of  Peter  Gautier  claim  that 
honour.  One  of  his  eyes  had  been  pricked  with  an 
awl;  in  confequence  of  which  the  aqueous  humour 
dropped  out,  and  he  became  blind  of  that  eye.  His 
fight  was  reftored,  whilft  he  paid  his  addreftes  to  the 
Abbe.  But  that  a  puncture  in  the  cornea  of  the  eye 
will  often  heal  of  itfelf,  and  that  the  aqueous  hu- 
mour, after  it  hath  been  quite  loft,  will  be  recruited, 
and  confequently,  that  the  faculty  of  vifion  will,  in 
fuch  a  cafe,  be  recovered,  is  what  every  oculift  can 
allure  us  of.  The  lofs  of  the  watery  humour,  is  the 
conftant  effect  of  a  very  common  operation  in  furgery, 
couching  the  cataract.  Hence  we  may  learn,  how 
we  ousht  to    underftand  thefe    words  of  the   author 

o 

M  The  curing  of  the  lick,  giving  hearing  to  the  deaf, 
>(  and  light  to  the  blind,  were  every  where  talked  of 

"  as 


Seel.  5.      Gospel  fully  Attested.  139 

"  as  the  ufual  effects  of  that  holy  fepulchre*."  As 
therefore  the  alledged  miracles  were  all  of  the  fecond 
clafs,  'tis  only  from  the  attendant  circumftances  we 
can  judge,  whether  the  facts,  tho5  acknowledged, 
were  miraculous  or  not. 

In  order  to  enlighten  us  on  this  point,  I  obferve, 
fifthly,  That  none  of  the  cures  were  injlantaneous. 
We  have  not  indeed  the  fame  hold  of  the  deceafed 
Abbey  as  of  a  living  prophet,  who  pretends  to  work 
miracles.  Thofe  who  attend  the  latter,  can  know 
exactly,  to  whom  he  grants  the  benefit  of  his  mi- 
raculous aid.  They  can  judge  alfo,  whether  the  fup- 
plicant's  recovery  be  coincident,  with  the  prophet's 
volition  or  command.  In  the  former  cafe,  we  have 
not  accefs  to  judge  of  either;  and  confequently, 
there  is  much  greater  fcope  for  fancy  and  credulity  to 
operate.  No  voice  was  ever  faid  to  have  proceeded 
from  the  tomb  of  the  bleffed  deacon,  as  his  votaries 
ftyled  him.  They  obtained  no  audible  anfwer  to 
their  prayers.  There  are  however  fome  circum- 
itances,  by  which  a  probable  conjecture  may  be 
made  concerning  the  efficiency  of  the  faint  in  the 
cures  afcribed  to  him.  One  is,  if  the  cure  inftan- 
taneoufly  followed  the  firft  devotions  at  the  tomb. 
Supernatural  cures  differ,  in  this  particular,  as  much 
as  in  any  other,  from  thofe  which  are  effected  by 
natural  means,  that  they  are  not  gradually,  but  in- 
ftantly,  perfected.  Now  of  which  kind  were  the 
cures  of  St  Medard  ?  From  the  accounts  that  are 
given,  'tis  evident,  that  they  were  gradual.  That 
fome  of  them  were  fudden,  is  alledged  ;  but  that  any 

of 
*  p.  195. 


140  The  Miracles  of  the         Part  II. 

of  them  were  injiantaneous,  or  immediately  followed 
the  firft  application,  is  not  even  pretended.  All  the 
worfhippers  at  the  tomb,  perfifted  for  days,  feveral 
of  them  for  weeks,  and  fome  for  months  fucceffively, 
daily  imploring  the  interceffion  of  the  Abbe,  before 
they  received  relief  from  their  complaints ;  and  the 
relief  which  was  received,  is,  in  moft  cafes,  ac- 
knowledged to  have  been  gradual. 

I  obferve,  fixthly,  That  moft  of  the  devotees  either 
had  been  ufing  medicines  before,  and  continued  to  ufe 
them,  during  their  applications  to  the  faint  ;  or, 
that  their  di (tempers  had  abated,  before  they  deter- 
mined to  folicit  his  help.  That  the  Spanifh  youth 
had  been  ufing,  all  the  while  a  medicine  prefcribed 
by  an  eminent  oculift,  was  proved  by  the  depofitions 
of  witnefTes  ;  that  Gautier  had  begun  to  recover  his 
fight,  before  he  had  recourfe  to  the  fepulchre,  was 
attefted,  not  only  by  his  uncle,  but  even  by  himfelf, 
when,  as  the  Archbifhop  of  Sens  informs  us,  he 
"figned  a  recantation  of  what  he  had  formerly  ad- 
vanced. With  regard  to  the  reft,  it  appears  at  leaft 
probable,  from  the  circumftances  of  the  proof,  that 
they  were  ufing  the  prefcriptions  of  the  phyficians, 
whom  they  had  confulted  before  applying  to  the  dea- 
con, and  who  were  afterwards  required  to  give  their 
teftimony,  concerning  the  nature  and  malignancy  of 
the  different  difeafes. 

The  feventh  obfervation  is,  That  fome  of  the 
cures  attefted  were  incomplete.  This  was  manifeftly 
the  cafe  of  the  Spaniard,  who  was  relieved  only  from 
the  moft  inconfiderable  part  of  his  complaint.  Even 
the  cure   of  Mademoiselle  Thibault,  which   was   as 

great 


Seel:.  5.      GosrEL  fully  Attested.  141 

great  a  fubjecl  of  exultation  to  the  partifans  of  the 
Abbe  as  any  other,  was  not  complete.  Not  only  was 
fhe  confined  to  her  bed,  for  many  days,  after  the  de- 
creafe  of  her  dropfy  ;  but  (lie  (till  remained  incapable 
of  moving  two  of  her  fingers.  Silva,  phyfician  lo 
the  Duke  of  Orleans,  attefted  this;  adding  exprefsly, 
that  he  could  not  look  on  her  as  being  cured. 

The  eighth  and  laft  obfervation  I  mall  make  on 
this  fubjecl  is,  That  the  relief  granted  fome  of  them 
was  but  temporary.  This  \v3S  clearly  proved  to  be  the 
cafe  of  the  Spanifh  gentleman.  That  foon  after  his 
return  home,  he  relapfed  into  his  former  malady, 
the  prelate  I  have  often  quoted,  hath,  by  the  certi- 
ficates and  letters  which  he  procured  from  Madrid, 
put  beyond  controverfy.  Among  thefe,  there  are  let- 
ters from  a  Spanifh  grandee,  Don  Francis  Xavier,  and 
from  the  patient's  uncle,  befides  a  certificate  figned 
by  himfelf. 

After  the  above  obfervations,  I  believe,  there  will 
be  no  occafion  for  faying  much  on  this  fubjecl:.  The 
author  has,  in  a  note,  artfully  enough  pointed  out 
his  aim,  that  it  might  not  be  overlooked  by  the 
carelefs  reader  *.  u  There  is  another  book,"  fays 
he,  ■■  in  three  volumes,  (called  Recueil des  miracles  de 
"  V  Abbe  Paris,)  giving  an  account  of  many  of  thefe 
*'  miracles,  and  accompanied  with  prefatory  dif- 
"  courfes,  which  are  very  well  wrote  f."     He  adds, 

"  There 
*  p.  196. 

f  I  am  furprifed  that  Mr  Hume  hath  taken  no  notice  of  the 
profound  erudition  difplayed  in  the  Recueil,  as  I   imagine  its  au- 
thor is  much  more  eminent  for  this,  than  for  his  talent  in  wri- 
ting. 


142  The  Miracles  of  the         Part  II. 

"  There  runs  however,  thro'  the  whole    of  thefe  a 
*  a  ridiculous  comparison  betwixt  the  miracles  of  our 

Saviour 


ting.     Befides,  his  learning  deferves  cur  regard  the  more,  that 
it    is   of   a  kind    rarely    to    be  met  with  in  the  prefent  century. 
Where  mall  we  find  in  thefe  dregs  of  the  ages,  to  adopt  his  own 
emphatical  expreffion,  fuch  an  extenlive  knowledge,  as  he  hath 
exhibited,  of  all  the  monkifh  and  legendary  writings  of  the  dark- 
eft  and  mofr  barbarous,  or,  according  to  him,  the   moft  devout 
ages  of  the  church  ?     Or  whence  elfe,  but  from  thofe  productions, 
could   he   have  fclected  fuch  admirable  materials  for  his  work  ? 
The  lives  and  writings  of  the  faints  are  an  inexhauftible  treafure 
for  a  performance  of  this  kind.     'Tis  true,  St  Mathew,  St  Mark, 
St  Luke,  and  St  John,  have  faid  little  to  his  purpofe,  and  he 
makes  as  little  ufe  of  them.     But  is  not  this  want  richly  fuppli- 
ed  in  St   Cudbert,  St  Edildride,  St  Willibrord,  St  Baudri,  and 
five  hundred  other*  of  equal  note  ?     One  thing  however  I  would 
gladly  be  informed  of,  being  utterly  at  a  lofs   to  account   for  it. 
What  intitled  this  author,  who  feems  not  to  be  deficient  in  ave- 
neration  truly  catholic  for  ignorance,  fuperflition,  and  barbarifm, 
to  fpeak  contemptibly  of  "Capgravius,  Colganus,  and  Jacobus  de 
Voragine  author  of  The  gcldm  legend?     To  be   plain   with   him, 
this  is  a  freedom  which  doth  not  at  all  become  him:  for  of  ibcfeiu 
readers  in  this  age,  who  happen  to  be  acquainted  with  the  autho- 
rities quoted  in  the  Recueil,  moft,  if  not  all,  will,  I'm  afraid,  be 
of  opinion,  that  the  writers  laft  ment:oned   are  fully  as  credibL, 
not  lefs  famous,  and  much  more  ingenious,  than  many  of  thofe 
to  whom  he  is  fo  greatly  indebted  for  his  moft  extraordinary  nar- 
rative.    Was  it  for  him  then  to  fcandalize  thefe  feiv?     'Tis  pity 
that  a  writer  of  fuch  uncommon  reading  and  application  fhould 
actfo  inconfiftently,  and  undermine  his  own  caufe.     But  paffing 
his  literature,  which  is  unqueftionable,  I  fhall  give  the   reader  a 
fpecimen  of  his  talent  in  difpukation.     To  the  objection  that  had 
been  made,  that  the  miracles  of  the  deacon  were  gradual,  he  re- 
plies, "  So  was  the  creation,  the  firft  of  miracles,  which  employed 
no  lefs  than  fix  days.  "     As  all  that  was  done  in   that  time,  is 
comprehended  under  one  name,  the  creation,  he  concludes  ve- 


Se£.  4.  GOSTEL    FULLY    ATTESTED.  143 

"  Saviour  and  thofe  of  the  Abbe\  wherein  'tis  afTerted, 
"  that  the  evidence  for  the  latter  is  equal  to  that  for 
the  former  t."     At   firft  reading,  one   is  apt,  with 

furprife 

ry  fagely,  that  it  ought  to  be  denominated  one  miracle.  A  wri- 
ter of  this  ftamp  would  no  doubt  defpife  the  anfwer  which  an 
ordinary  reader  might  make  him, — -f-rjl,  That  every  fingle  pro- 
duction W2s  a  perfect  miracle, — -fecondly,  That  nothing  could  be 
more  inftantaneous  than  thofe  productions,  God/aid,  let  there  be 
light,  and  there  ivas  light,  Isfc — and  lajlly,  That  the  world  was 
not  created  by  the  miniftration  of  man,  nor  in  the  prefence  of 
men,  nor  in  order  to  ferve  as  evidence  of  any  doctrine.  I  rnuft 
be  forgiven  to  remark,  that  in  the  whole  of  this  author's  reply, 
he  hath  unfortunately  miftaken  the  meaning  of  the  objectors, 
who  intend  not  to  fay,  that  God  may  not  perform  a  miracle  gra- 
dually, but  that  what  is  fo  performed,  hath  not  the  fame  evi- 
dence of  its  being  miraculous,  as  what  is  done  in  an  inftant,  and 
therefore  cannot  fo  well  ferve  as  evidence  of  any  doctrine.  Now 
that  the  miracles  of  Monfieur  de  Paris  were  intended  as  evidence 
of  his  doctrine,  and  confequently  of  that  of  the  appellants  from 
the  bull  Unigenitus,  he  everywhere  vehemently  maintains.  Ano- 
ther fpecimen  of  this  author's  acutenefs  and  ingenuity  I  fhall 
give  in  a  literal  tranflation  from  his  own  words.  "  But,  it 
"  will  be  faid,  in  the  earlieft  times  of  the  church,  miraculous 
"  cures  were  commonly  perfected  in  an  inflant.  True ;  and 
<c  'tis  this  which  confirms  my  doctrine.  As  it  was  ordinary  thenj 
"  to  convert  great  finners  all  of  a  fudden.  But  fuch  wonders  in 
«'  both  kinds  are  for  the  commencement  of  the  church,  or  for  the 
"  renovation  promifed  her.  In  thefe  days,  which  the  French 
«  clergy  have  juflly  ftyled  the  dregs  of  the  ages,  'tis  much  that  God 
"  convert  many  finners,  and  cure  many  fick,  by  flow  degrees, 
"  at  the  fame  time  that  he  fhows  by  fome  more  mining  exam- 
"  pies  that  his  arm  is  not  fhortened  " 

f  I  am  forry  to  be  again  fo  foon  kid  under  the  necefiity  cf  ob- 
fcrving,  that  the  effayiit,  by  confiJing  too  much  in  his  memory, 
often  injures  the  writers  whom  he  quote-.  It  is  but  doing  juftice 
to  the  author  of  the  Recueil,  to  obferve,  that  he  hath,  in  no  part 

of 


144  The  Miracles  of  the        Part  II. 

furprife,    to    imagine,  that    the  ai/hor  is  going    to 
make  fome  atonement  for  the  tenets  of  the  eflay,  by 

turning 

of  his  performance,  afferted  that  the  evidence  fcr  the  miracles 
ofMonfieurde  Paris  is  equal  to  that  for  the  ni. racks  of  Jefus 
Chrift.  Perhaps  my  reader  will  be  furpnfed  when  I  tell  him, 
for  I  own  I  was  exceedingly  furprifed  when  I  difcovered,  that 
he  hath  not  only  in  the  plaineft  te:  ms  afferted,  but  ftrenuoufly 
maintained,  the  contrary.  And  for  this  purpofe  he  hath  employ- 
ed no  lefs  than  twelve  pages  of  his  work.  He  introduces  the 
fubjec't.  (Difcourfe  2-  part  I.)  with  obierving,  that  he  and  the 
reft:  of  his  party  had  been  traduced  by  their  adverfaries,  as  equal- 
ling the  miracles  of  the  deacon  to  thofe  of  our  Saviour.  The  im- 
piety of  fuch  a  comparifm  he  mem-Tis  with  horror,  and  treats 
the  charge  as  an  abfolute  calumny.  Hence  he  takes  occafion  to 
enumerate  thofe  peculiar  circurnftances  in  the  miracles  of  our 
Lord,  which  gave  them  an  eminent  fuperiority,  not  only  over 
thofe  of  his  faint,  but  over  thofe  of  every  other  faint,  or  prophet 
whatfoever.  To  this  enumeiation  he  fubjoiris,  Tons  ceux  qui  re- 
courent  a  Monueur  de  Paris  nefont  pas  gueris,  nous  dit-cn  ;  plu- 
fieurs  nele  font  qu'en  partic,  ou  d'une  maniere  ltnte,  el 
eclatantc;  il  n'a  point  reffufcite  de  morts.  Que  s'enfuit  il  de-la, 
finon  que  les  miracles  que  Dieu  a  operes  par  lui  font  inferieurs  a 
ceux  que  notre  Seigneur  a  operes  par  lui  raerae  ?  Nous  ]'avouons» 
nous  inculquons  cette  verite-  "  All  thofe,  we  are  told,  who  re- 
"  cur  to  Morfieur  de  Paris  are  not  cured;  fcveral  ar^  cured  but 
"  in  part,  or  m  a  flow  and  lefs  linking  rr.aniier ;  he  hath  raifed 
«c  no  dead.  What  follows,  unlefs  that  the  miracles  which  God 
"  wrought  by  him,  are  inferior  to  thofe  which  our  Lord 
"  wrought  by  himfeif  ?  We  acknowledge,  we  inculcate  this 
truth."  Afterwards,  fpeaking  of  evidence,  he  owns  alfo, 
that  the  miracles  of  the  deacon  are  not  equally  certain  with 
thofe  of  Jefus  Chrift;  The  latter,  he  fays,  are  more  certain  in 
many  refpedls.  He  fpecifies  the  natural  notoriety  of  fome  of  the 
facts,  th^  public  and  inftantaneous  manner  in  wh'ch  moft  of 
them  were  offe-fted,  the  number,  the  quality,  the  conftancy  of 
the  witneffes,  and  the  forced  acknowledgement  of  his  moft  fpite- 

ful 


Sect.  5.      Gospel   fully  Attested.  145 

turning  advocate  for  the  miracles  of  Jefus  Chriit  ; 
and  by  mowing,  that  thefe  are  not  affected  by  his 
doctrine.  Bat  on  this  point  we  are  not  long  held  in 
fufpenfe.  He  fubjoins,  "  As,  if  the  testimony  of 
«•  men  could  ever  be  put  in  the  balance  with  that  of 
N  "  God 

ful  enemies.  He  concludes  this  fubject  in  thtfe  memorable 
terms.  Au  refte  ce  que  je  viens  d'expofer  fur  la  fuperiorite  de« 
merveilles  operes  par  le  Sauveur,  je  l'avois  reconnu  avec  plaifir 
d2ns  le  premier  difcours.  J'y  ai  dit  en  propres  termes,  qu'il  y  a- 
Voit  une  difference  in'.nie  entre  let  miracle*  de  Jefus  Chrijl  et  ceux  de 
Monfteur  de  Paris.  J'ai  promis  de  ne  jamais  oubl.er  cette  diffe- 
rence, et  j'ai  tenu  parole.  J'ai  remarque,  dans  le  lieu  ou  il  eou- 
venoit  de  le  faire,  que  cette  difference  infine  regardoit  V  evidence 
des  prodiges  audi  bien  que  leur  grandeur ;  et  que  les  incrcdules 
pouvoient  nous  dire,  que  ceux  que  nous  produiiions  n'ont  point  le 
meme  eclat  qu'ont  eu  ceux  de  notre  6'etgneur.  "  Finally  what 
"  I  have  juil  no.v  evinced  on  the  fupcriority  of  the  wonders  per- 
"  formed  by  our  Lord,  I  had  acknowledged  with  pleasure  in  the 
"  firff;  difcourfe.  1  faid  there  in  exprefs  terms,  that  there  was 
**  an  infinite  difference  between  the  miracles  of  Jfus  Chrijl  and  thofe  of 
n  Monfteur  de  Paris.  I  promifed  never  to  forget  this  difference, 
u  and  I  have  kept  my  promife.  I  remarked  in  its  proper  place, 
that  this  infinite  difference  regarded  the  evidence  as  well  as  the 
11  greatnefs  of  the  prodig.es;  and  that  the  incredulous  might  cb- 
"  ject,  that  thofe  which  we  produce,  have  r.ot  the  fame  luftre 
"  with  thofe  of  our  Saviour.'1  I  have  been  the  more  particular 
on  this  point,  not  fo  much  to  vindicate  the  author  of  the  Recueil% 
as  to  fhow  the  fenfe  which  the  mofl  bigoted  partizans  of  the  holy 
deacon  had  of  the  difference  between  the  miracles  afcribed  to 
him,  and  thofe  performed  by  our  Lord.  I  canno:  avoid  remark- 
ing alfo  another  difference,  I  mean  that  which  appears  between 
the  fentiments  of  this  author  as  expreifed  by  himfelf,  and  his 
fentiments  as  reported  by  the  effayif-.  'Tis  indeed,  Mr  Hume» 
a  judicious  obfervation  you  have  given  us  ;  that  we  ought  to 
«  lend  a  very  academic  faith  to  every  report  which  favours  the 
1  paSion  of  the  reporter;  in  whatever  way  it  firikes  in  with  hh 
•*  natural  inclinations  and  propeufities.'  p.  zco. 


146  The  Miracles  of  the       Part  II. 

"  God  himfelf,  who  concluded  the  pen  of  the  infpi- 
"  red  writers."  An  ingenious  piece  of  raillery  with- 
out question.  Is  it  poflible,  in  a  politer  man- 
ner, or  in  more  obliging  terms,  to  tell  the  Chriftian 
world,  They  are  foch  ;  and  that  all  who  arc  filly 
enough  to  believe  the  miracles  recorded  in  fcripture, 
are  not  intitled  to  be  argued  with  as  men?  How? 
They  are  fo  abfurd  as  to  believe  the  fcriptures  to  be 
the  word  of  God,  on  the  evidence  of  the  miracles 
wrought  by  our  Lord  and  his  apofties  ;  and  that  thefe 
miracles  were  wrought,  they  could  not  believe  on  any 
teftimony,  lefs  than  that  of  God,  reporting  them  in 
the  fcriptures  :  and  thus,  by  making  infpiration  and 
miracles  reciprocally  foundations  to  each  other,  they, 
in  effe£t,  admit  both  without  any  foundation  at  all. 
After  this  handfome  compliment  to  the  friends  of 
holy  writ,  he  thinks  himfelf  at  liberty  to  be  very  ex- 
plicit on  the  comparative  evidence  of  the  miracles  of 
the  Ab'he,  and  thofe  of  Jefus :  "  If  thefe  writers  in- 
'«  deed  were  to  be  confidered  merely  as  human  tefti- 
M  mony,  the  French  author  is  very  moderate  in  his 
4*  comparifon ;  fmce  he  might,  with  fame  appearance 
4t  ofreafon,  pretend,  that  the  Janfeniit  miracles  much 
M  furpafs  the  other,  in  evidence  and  authority." 
Was  ever  fo  rough  an  affault,  preceded  by  fo  fmooth, 
but  fo  infidious  a  preamble  ?  Is  it  then  (till  the  fate  of 
Jefus  to  be  betrayed  with  a  kifs  ?  But  notwithstand- 
ing this  author's  declaration,  no  Chriftian  will  have 
reafon  to  dread  the  iflue  of  the  comparifon.  Mr 
Hume  hath  not  entered  on  particulars,  neither  mail  I 
enter  on  them.  I  mould  not  incline  to  tire  my  rea- 
der with  repetitions,    which,   in  a  minute  inquiry, 

would 


Sect.  5.    Gospel  fully  Attested.  147 

would  be  inevitable.  I  fhall  therefore  only  defire 
him,  if  he  think  it  needful,  to  perufe  a  fecond  time 
the  eight  foregoing  obfcrvations.  Let  him  try  the 
miracles  of  our  Lord  by  this  touch  ftone  ;  and  I 
pcrfuademyfelf,  he  will  be  fatisfied,  that  there  is  «* 
appearance  of  reafon  to  pretend)  that  the  Janfenift 
miracles  muchfurpafs  the  other,  or  even  equal  them, 
in  evidence  and  authority. 

The  author  triumphs  not  a  little  in  the  obfervati- 
on,  that  the  reports  of  the  prodigies  performed  by 
the  deacon,  were  violently  oppofed  by  the  civil  ma- 
gifrrate,  and  by  the  Jefuits,  the  mod:  learned  fociety  in 
the  kingdom.  He  could  fee  the  importance  of  this 
circumstance  in  the  the  cafe  of  Abbe  Paris,  tho' 
not  in  the  cafe  of  Jefus  Chrifr.  But  that  the  differ- 
ence of  the  cafes  as  well  as  their  refemblance,  may 
better  appear ;  it  ought  likewife  to  be  obferved,  that 
Janfenifm,  tho'  not  the  ruling  faction,  was  at  that 
time  the  popular  faction  ;  that  this  popularity  was 
not  the  effect  of  the  miracles  of  the  Abbe,  but  ante- 
cedent to  thofe  miracles  ;  that,  on  the  contrary,  the 
Jefuits  were  extremely  unpopular  \  and  that  many,  who 
had  no  more  faith  in  the  miracles  of  Saint  Medard 
than  Mr  Plume  hath,  were  well  pleafed  to  connive 
at  a  delufion,  which  at  once  plagued  and  mortified  a 
body  of  men,  that  were  become  almofl  univerfally 
odious. 

I  mall  only  add,  that  nothing  could  more  effec- 
tually expofe  the  folly  of  thofe  pretenfions,  than  the 
expedient  by  which  they  were  made  to  ceafe :  In 
confequence  of  an  order  from  the  King,  the  fepulchre 
was  inclofed  with  a  wall,  and  the  votaries  were  de- 
barred 


148  The  Miracles  of  the         Part  II. 

barred  from  approaching  the  tomb.  The  author  fays, 
in  re  ation  to  this  *,  "  No  Janfenift  was  ever  em- 
"  barrafied  to  account  for  the  ceiTation  of  the  mira- 
"  'des,  when  the  churchyard  was  ihut  up  by  the 
"  Kings  edict.'"'  Certain  it  is,  that  "  God  is  matter 
"  oi  his  own  graces  and  works."  But  it  is  equally 
certain,  that  neither  reafon  nor  the  gofpel  leads  us  to 
think,  that  any  human  expedient  will  prove  fuccefs- 
ful,  which  is  calculated  to  frustrate  the  decrees  of 
Heaven.  Both,  on  the  contrary,  teach  us,  that  men 
never  moredire&ly  promote  the  deflgns  of  their  Maker 
than  when  they  intend  dire&ly  to  oppefe  them.  It 
was  not  thus,  that  either  pharifeesor  Sadducees,  Jews 
er  Gentiles,  fucceded  in  their  oppofition  to  the  mira- 
cles of  Jefus  and  his  apoftles.  The  opinion  of  Gamaliel* 
was  undoubtedly  judicious :  If  this counjel  or  this  work 
be  of  men,  it  will  come  to  nought  ;  but  if  it  be  of  God,  ye 
c  a  N  NOT  overthrow  it ;  beware  therefore ,  left  ye  be  found 
fighting  even  againjl  God.  To  conclude  ;  Did  the 
Janfenift  caufe  derive  any  advantage  from  thofe  preten- 
ded miracles?  None  at  all.  It  even  fuffered  by 
them.  It  is  juftly  remarked  by  Voltaire*,  that  "  the 
"  tomb  of  the  deacon  Paris,  proved  in  effect,  in  the 
11  minds  of  all  people  of  fenfe,  the  tomb  of  Janfe- 
"  nifm:"  How  unlike  in  all  refpecls  the  miracles 
recorded  by  the  Evangehfts ! 

Thus  I  have  briefly  inquired  into  the  nature  and 
evidence,  fir  It  of  the  Pagan,  and  next  of  the  Popijb 
miracles,  mentioned  by  Mr  Hume  ;  and  have,  I 
hope,  fufficiently  evinced,  that  the  miracles  of  the  New 

Teftament 

*  p.  198.  in  the  note.  f  Adsv  38.  39. 

\  Siecle  de  X-ouis  XIV.  chap,  35. 


Sect.  6       Gospel  fully  Attest  ed.  149 

Tefhment  can  fufFer  nothing  by  the  companion  ; 
that,  on  the  contrary,  as,  in  painting,  the  {hades 
i'ene  to  heighten  the  glow  of  the  colours  ;  and,  in  mu- 
fic,  the  difcords  to  fet  off  the  fweetnefs  of  the  har- 
mony j  To  the  value  of  thefe  genuine  miracles  is  en- 
hanced by  the  contrail  of  thofe  paltry  counterfeits. 

SECTION     VI. 

Abjlr a  fling  from  the  evidence  for particular -fuels ;  we  have 
irrefragable  evidence,  that  there  have  been  miracles  in 
former  times  ;  orfuch  events  us,  when  compared  with 
theprefent  conflitution  of  the  world,  would  by  Mr  Hume 
be  denominated  miraculous. 

I  Readily  concur  with  Mr  Hume  in  maintain- 
ing, that  when,  merely  by  the  force  of  reason} 
we  attempt  to  inveftigate  the  origin  of  worlds*,  we 
get  beyond  our  fphere,  and  muft  infallibly  bewilder 
ourfelves  in  hypothefisand  conjecture.  Reason  in- 
deed (which  vainly  boafts  her  all-fufficiency)  hath 
fometimes  pretended  to  carry  men  to  this  amazing 
height.  But  there  is  ground  to  fufpedt,  that,  in  fuch 
inftances,  theafcent  of  reafon,  as  the  author  elegant- 
ly exprelfeth  it  t,  hath  been  aided  by  the  wings  of 
imagination.  If  we  will  not  be  indebted  to  reve- 
lation, for  our  knowledge  of  this  article,  we  muft, 
for  aught  I  can  percieve,  be  fatisfied  to  live  in  igno- 
rance. There  is,  however,  one  queftion  diftinft 
from  the  former,  tho'  akin  to  it,  which,  even  from 
the  principles  of  reafon,  we  may  with  great  probabi- 
N  3  lity 

*  Effay  1  a.     Of  the  academical  or  fceptical  philofophy,  part  3. 
-f  Effay  11,       Of  a  particular  providence  and   future  ftate. 


150  The  Miracles  of  the        Part  II. 

lity  determine.     The  queftion  I  mean  is,  Whether 
the  world  had  an  origin  or  not? 

That  there  hath  been  an  infinite,  eternal,  and  in- 
dependent feries  of  finite,  fucceffive,  and  dependent 
beings,  fuch  as  men,  and  confcquently  that  the  world 
had  no  beginning,  appears,  from  the  bare  confiderati- 
on  of  the  thing,  extremely  incredible,  if  not  altoge- 
ther abfurd.  The  abftract  argument  ufed  on  this 
head,  might  appear  too  metaphyiical  and  refined:  I 
mall  not  therefore  introduce  it ;  but  fhall  recur  to  to- 
pics which  are  more  familiar,  and  which,  tho'  they 
do  not  demonftrate,  that  it  is  abfolutely  impoflible 
that  the  world bath exijfed from  eternity,  clearly  evince 
that  is  highly  improbable,  or  rather,  certainly  falfe. 
Thefe  topics  I  fhall  only  mention,  as  they  are  pret- 
ty obvious,  and  have  been  often  urged  with  great  en- 
ergy by  the  learned,  both  ancient  and  modern.  Such 
are,  the  late  invention  of  letters,  and  of  all  the  fcien- 
ccs  and  arts  by  which  human  life  is  civilized;  the 
known  origin  of  mofl  nations,  ftates  and  kingdoms ; 
and  the  firft  peopling  of  many  countries.  'Tis  in  our 
power  at  prefent  to  trace  the  hiftory  of  every  people, 
backwards  to  times  of  the  greateft  barbarity  and  ig- 
norance. Europe,  tho'  not  the  largeft  of  the  four 
parts  into  which  the  earth  is  divided,  is,,  on  many  ac« 
counts,  the  mod  confiderable.  But  what  a  different 
face  doth  Europe  wear  at  prefent,  from  what  it  wore 
three  thor.fand  years  ago  ?  How  immenfe  the  odds 
in  knowledge,  in  arts,  in  policy,  in  every  thing? 
How  eafy  is  the  intercourfe,  and  how  extenfive  the 
acquaintance,  winch  men  can  now  enjoy  with  all, 
even  the  re  mote  ft  regions  of  the  globe,  compared  with 

what 


Se&.  6.      Gospel   fully  Attested.  151 

what  was,  or  could  have  been  enjoyed,  in  that  time 
of  darknefs  and  fimplicity  ?  A  man  differs  not  more 
from  a'child,  than  the  human  race  now  differs  from 
the  human  race  then.  Three  thoufand  years  ago, 
appear  indeed  to  mark  a  very  diftant  epoch;  and  yet 
it  is  but  as  yefterday,  compared  with  eternity.  This, 
when  duly  weighed,  every  thinking  perfon  will  ac- 
knowledge to  be  as  ftrong  moral  evidence,  as  the 
fubject  can  admit,  (and  that  I  imagine  is  very  ftrong) 
that  the  world  had  a  beginning. 

I  (hall  make  a  fuppofition,  which  will  perhaps  ap- 
pear vvhimfical,  but  which  will  tend  to  elucidate  the 
argument  I  am  enforcing.  In  antediluvian  times, 
when  the  longevity  of  man  was  fuch  as  to  include 
fome  centuries,  I  (hall  fuppofe,  that  a  few  boys  had 
been  imported  to  a  defart  iiland,  and  there  left  toge- 
ther, juft  old  enough  to  make  ill i ft  to  fuftain  them- 
felves,  as  thofe  In  the  golden  age  are  fabled  to  have 
done,  on  acorns,  and  other  fpontancous  productions  of 
the  foil.  I  fhall  fuppofe,  that  they  had  lived  there  for 
fome  hundreds  of  years,  had  remembered  nothing  of 
their  coming  into  the  ifland,  nor  of  any  other  perfon 
whatfoever ;  and  that  thus  they  had  never  had  accefs 
to  know,  or  hear,  of  either  birth  or  death.  I  fhall 
fuppofe  them  to  enter  into  a  ferious  difquifition  con- 
cerning their  own  duration,  the  queftion  having  been 
darted,  Whether  they  had  exifted  from  eternity,,  or 
had  once  begun  to  be  ?  They  recur  to  memory, 
but  memory  can  furnifh  them  nothing  certain  or  de- 
cisive. If  it  muft  be  allowed  that  it  contains  no  trace 
of  beginning  of  exigence,  it  muft  alfo  be  allowed, 
that  it  reaches  not  bevond  a  few  centuries  at    moft. 

They 


152  The  Miracles  of  the         Part  II. 

They  obferve  befides,  concerning  this  faculty,  that 
the  further  back  it  goes,  it  becomes  the  more  indif- 
tincl,  terminating  at  laft  in  confufion  and  darknefs. 
Some  things  however  they  diftinclly  recollecl,  and  are 
allured  of.  They  remember,  they  were  once  of  much 
lower  ftature,  and  of  fmaller  fiz.e  ;  they  had  lefs  bo- 
dily ftrength  \  and  all  their  mental  faculties  were  wea- 
ker. They  know,  that,  in  the  powers  both  of  bo- 
dy and  of  mind,  they  have  advanced,  by  impercept- 
ible degrees,  to  the  pitch  they  are  now  arrived  at. 
Thefe  confiderations,  efpecially  when  fortified  by 
fome  analogous  obfervations  they  might  have  made 
on  the  growth  of  herbs  and  trees,  would  have  mown 
the  probability  to  be  entirely  on  the  fide  of  thofe  who 
aflferted,that  their  exiftence  had  a  beginning:  And  tho'f 
on  account  of  the  narrow  fphere  of  their  knowledge 
and  experience,  the  argument  could  not  have  appeared 
to  them  in  all  its  ftrength,  we,  from  our  long  acquain- 
tance with  nature,  even  abftracling  from  our  know- 
ledge of  man  in  particular,  muft  be  fatisfied,  that  it 
would  have  been  ftriclly  analogical  and  juft.  Exacllyy*- 
milar,\he  very  fame,  I  mould  rather  fay, is  the  argument 
I  have  been  urging  for  the  origination  of  the  fpecies. 
Make  but  a  few  alterations  in  phrafeology  :  for  ?ne- 
rnory,  fubftitute  hifiory  and  tradition  ;  for  hundreds  of 
years,  fay  thoufands  ;  for  the  powers  of  body  and  mind, 
put  the  arts  and  fciences  :  and,  with  thefe,  and  per- 
haps one  or  two  more  fuch  variations,  you  will  find 
the  argument  as  applicable  in  the  one  cafe,  as  in  the 
other.  Now,  if  it  be  granted,  that  the  human  fpe- 
cies muft  have  had  a  beginning,  it  will  hardly  be  que- 
ftioned,  that  every  other  animal  fpecies,  or  even  that 
the  univerfe,  muft  have  had  a  beginning. 

But 


Sect.  6.      Gospel  futly  Attested.  153 

But  in  order  to  prove  the  propofition  laid  down 
in  the  title  of  this  fection,  'tis  not  neceiTary  to  fup- 
pofe,  that  the  world  had  a  beginning.  Admit  it  had 
not,  and  obferve  the  confequence.  Thus  much  mud 
be  admitted  alio,  that  not  barely  for  a  long  continued, 
but  for  an  eternal,  fucceilion  of  generations, 
mankind  were  in  a  (late  little  fuperior  to  the  beads  ; 
that  of  a  fudden,  there  came  a  mod  aftonifhing 
change  upon  the  fpecies  ;  that  they  exerted  talents 
and  capacities,  of  which  there  appeared  not  the 
(mailed  vedige,  during  the  eternity  preceding  ;  that 
they  acquired  fuch  knowledge  as  procured  them  a 
kind  of  empire,  not  only  over  the  vegetable  and  a- 
nimal  worlds,  but  even,  in  fome  refpect,  over  the 
elements,  and  all  the  unwieldy  powers  of  matter  ; 
that,  in  confequence  of  this,  they  were  quickly  raifed, 
much  more  above  the  (late  they  had  been  formerly 
and  eternally  in,  than  fuch  their  former  and  eternal 
frate  was  above  that  of  the  brute  creation.  If  fuch  a 
revolution  in  nature,  fuch  a  thorough,  general,  and 
fudden  change  as  this,  would  not  be  denominated 
miraculous,  'tis  not  in  my  power  to  conceive  what 
would.  I  could  not  efteem  it  a  greater  miracle, 
hardly  fo  great,  that  any  fpecies  of  beads,  which 
have  hitherto  been  doomed  to  tread  the  earth,  fhould 
now  get  wings,  and  float  about  in  the  air. 

Nor  will  this  plea  be  fubverted  by  that  trite  ob- 
jection, That  mankind  may  have  been  as  much  en- 
lightened, perhaps  myriads  of]  years  ago,  as  they  are 
at  prefent ;  but  that  by  fome  umverjal  calamity,  fuch 
as  deluge  or  conflagration,  which,  after  the  rotation 
of  many  centuries,  the  earth  pofiibly  becomes  liable 

to, 


154-    '        The  Miraclss  of  the         Part  II. 

to,  all  traces  of  erudition  and  of  fcience,  all  traces 
both  of  the  elegant  and  of  the  ufeful  arts,  may  have 
been  effaced,  and  the  human  race,  fpring'mg  from  a 
few  who  had  efcaped  the  common  ruin,  may  have 
emerged  anew,  out  of  barbarity  and  ignorance. 
This  hypothecs  doth  but  iubilitute  one  miracle  in 
the  place  of  another.  Such  general  diforder  is  en- 
tirely unconformable  to  our  experience  of  the  courfe 
of  nature.  Accordingly  the  definition  of  the  world 
by  a  deluge,  the  author  hath  numbered  among  thofe 
prodigies,  or  miracles,  which  render  the  Pentateuch 
perfectly  incredible. 

If,  on  the  contrary,  we  admit,  that  the  world 
had  a  beginning,  (and  will  not  every  thinking  perfon 
acknowledge,  that  this  pofuion  is  much  more  pro- 
bable than  the  contrary  ?)  the  production  of  the 
world  muft  be  afcrib^d  either  to  chance,  or  to  /w- 
teJUgencc. 

Shall  we  derive  all  things,  fpiritnal  and  corporeal, 
from  a  principle  fo  inlignificant  as  blind  chance? 
Shall  we  fay,  with  Epicurus,  that  the  fortuitous 
courfe  of  rambling  atoms  hath  reared  this  beautiful 
and  fiupendous  fabric?  In  that  cafe,  perhaps,  we 
mould  give  an  account  of  the  origin  of  things,  which, 
moft  people  will  think,  could  not  properly  be  (ryled 
miraculous.  But  is  it,  becaufe  the  formation  of  a 
grand  and  regular  fyilem  in  this  way,  is  conformable 
to  the  experienced  order  of  nature?  Quite  the  re  - 
verfe.  Nothing  can  be  more  repugnant  to  univerfal 
experience,  than  that  the  leaft  organic  body,  not  to 
mention  the  glorious  frame  of  nature,  mould  be  pro- 
duced 


Scdl.  6.      Gospel  fully  Attested.  15$ 

duced  by  Tuch  a  cafual  jumble.  It  has  therefore,  in 
the  higheft  degree  poflible,  that  particular  quality  of 
miracles,  from  which,  according  to  the  author's  the- 
ory, their  incredibility  refults,  and  may  doubtlefs,  in 
this  loofe  acceptation  of  the  word,  be  termed  m'ira- 
cuhus.  But  fhould  we  affirm,  that,  to  account  thus 
for  the  origin  of  the  univerfe,  is  to  account  for  it  by 
miracle;  we  mould  be  thought,  I'm  afraid,  to  fpeak 
both  weakly  and  improperly.  There  is  fomething 
here,  if  I  may  foexprefs  myfelf,  which  is  far  beyond 
the  miraculous ;  fomething,  for  which  I  know  not 
whether  any  language  can  afford  a  proper  appellation, 
unlefs  it  be  the  general  appellations  of  absurdity  and 
nonfenfe. 

Shall  we  then  at  laft  recur  to  the  common  doctrine, 
that  the  world  was  produced  by  an  intelligent  cauje  ? 
On  this  fuppofition  alfo,  tho'  incomparably  the  tnoft 
rational,  it  is  evident,  that  in  the  creation,  formation, 
or  firft  production  ot  things,  call  it  by  what  name 
you  pleafe,  a  power  nfiuft  have  been  exerted,  which, 
in  refpeel  of  the  prefent  courfe  of  nature,  may  be 
flyled  miraculous,  I  intend  not  to  difpute  about  a 
word,  norto  inquire,  whether  that  term  can,  in  fir i 61 
propriety,  -be  ufed  of  any  exertions  before  the  efta- 
blimment  of  the  laws  of  nature.  I  ufe  the  word  in 
the  fame  latitude,  in  which  the  author  commonly 
ufeth  it  in  his  reafoning,  for  every  event  that  is  not 
conformable  to  that  courfe  of  nature  with  which  we 
are  acquainted  by  experience. 

Whether,  therefore,  the  world  had,  or  bad  not, 
a  beginning  1  whether,  on   the  ffjl  fuppofition,  the 

production 


156  The  Miracles  of  the        Part  II. 

production  of  things  be  afcribed  to  chance,  or  to  <&- 
jign  \  whether,  on  the  fecend,  in  order  to  folve  the 
numberlefs  objections  that  arife,  we  do>  or  do  not, 
recur  to  univerfal  catajirophes  ;  there  is  no  poiTibility 
of  accounting  for  the  phenomena  that  prefently  come 
under  our  notice,  without  having  at  laft  recourfe  to 
miracles;  that  is,  to  events  altogether  uncon- 
formable, or,  if  you  will,  contrary  to  the  prefent 
courfe  of  nature  known  to  us  by  experience.  I 
cannot  conceive  an  hypothecs,  which  is  not  reducible 
to  one  or  other  of  thofe  above-mentioned.  Whoever 
imagines,  that  another  might  be  framed,  whieh  is 
not  comprehended  in  any  of  thofe,  and  which  hath 
not  as  yet  been  devifed  by  any  fyftem -builder ;  let 
him  make  the  experiment,  and  I  will  venture  to 
prognosticate,  that  he  will  ftill  find  himfelf  clogged 
with  the  fame  difficulty,  The  conclufion  therefore 
above  deduced,  maybejuftly  deemed,  till  the  con- 
trary is  fhown,  to  be  not  only  the  refult  of  one,  but 
alike  of  every  hypothefis,  of  which  the  fubjeel:  is  fuf- 
ceptible. 

Thus  it  hath  been  evinced,  as  was  propofed,  that 
abftracting  from  the  evidence  for  particular  fa£ts,  we 
have  irrefragable  evidence,  that  there  have  been, 
that  there  muft  have  been,  miracles  in  former  times, 
or  fuch  events,  as  when,  compared  with  the  prefent 
conllitution  of  the  world,  would  by  Mr  Hume  be  de- 
nominated miraculous. 


S  ECT, 


Seel,  7.       Gospel  fully  Attested.  257 

S  E  C  T  I  6TN      VII. 
a 

Revifal  of  Mr  Humes  examination  of  the  Pentateuch, 

ALlowing  to  the  conclufion  deduced  in  the 
foregoing  feclion  its  proper  weight,  I  fhall 
aifo  take  into  confideration  the  Pentateuch,  or  five 
books  of  Mofes ;  or  rather,  I  fhall  endeavour 
impartially  to  revife  the  examination  which  thofe 
books  have  already  undergone  by  the  efTayift*. 
It  is,  in  this  cafe,  of  the  greateft  importance  to  know, 
whether  the  evidence  on  both  fides  hath  been  fairly 
ftated. 

"  Here  then  we  are  firft  to  confider  a  book," 
which  is  acknowledged,  on  all  hands,  to  be  the 
mofl  ancient  record  in  the  world,  "  prefented  to  us,'' 
we  admit,  '*  by  a  barbarous  and  ignorant  people  t," 
at  the  fame  time  exhibiting  a  fyftem  of  Theifm,  or 
natural  religion,  which  is  both  rational  and  fublime  ; 
with  which  nothing  that  was  ever  compiled  or  pro- 
duced, on  thisfubjeel,  in  the  mod  enlightened  ages, 
by  the  mofl  learned  and  polifhed  nations,  who  were 
unacquainted  with  that  book,  will  bear  to  be  compa- 
red. 

Mr  Hume  himfelf  mud  allow,  that  this  remark 
O  deferves 

*  p.  205. 

f  The  author  adds,  "  wrote  in  an  age,  when  they  were  ftill 
"  more  barbarous."  Thefe  words  I  have  omited  in  the  revifal, 
becaufe  they  appear  to  me  unintelligible.  The  age  in  which  the 
Pentateuch  was  written,  is  indirectly  compared  to  another  age^ 
he  fays  not  what:  and  all  we  can  make  of  it  is,  that  this  people 
were  more  barbarous  at  that  time,  than  at  fome  other  time,  no- 
body knows  when. 


^5&  The  Miracles  of  the       Part  II. 

deferves  attention,  fine"  his  reafoningin  another  per- 
formance, which  he  c  ds,  The  natural  fnftory  of  reli- 
gion, would  lead  us  co  expect  the  contrary.  He 
there  maintains,  th&t  Polytheifm  and  Idolatry  arc, 
and  mud  be,  the  religion  of  rude  and  barbarous, 
and  confequentl y  of  ancient  ages  ;  that  the  true  prin- 
ciples ol  Theifm,  or  the  belief  of  one  almighty  and 
wife  Being,  the  creator,  the  preferver,  and  the  ruler 
of  heaven  and  earth,  refults  from  the  greateft  improve- 
ments of  the  underftanding  in  philofophy  and  fcience. 
To  fuppofe  the  contrary,  fays  he,  is  fuppofing,  that 
"  while  men  were  ignorant  and  barbarous,  they 
c<  difcovered  truth  ;  but  fell  into  error,  as  foon  as 
"  they  acquired  learning  and  politenefs  *."  This 
reafoning  is  jufr,  where-ever  'religion  is  to  be  con- 
sidered as  the  refult  of  human  reflections.  What 
account  then  will  the  author  give  of  this  wonderful 
exception  r  That  the  reverfe  is  here  the  cafe,  it  is 
impoflible  for  him  to  dinemble.  The  people  he 
himfelf calls  ignorant  and  barbarous;  yet  they  are 
not  idolaters  or  polytheifts.  At  the  time  when  the 
book,  which  he  examines,  was  compofed,  he  feems 
to  think,  they  even  exceeded  themfelves  in  barbarity  ; 
vet  the  fentiments  of  thefe  barbarians  on  the  fubject 
of  religion,  the  fentiments  which  that  very  book 
prefents  to  us,  may  well  put  to  filence  the  wifdom 
of  the  politeft  nations  on  earth.  Need  I  re- 
mind Mr  Hume  of  his  exprefs  declaration,  that  if  a 
traveller  were  tranfported  into  any  unknown  region, 
and  found  the  inhabitants  "  ignorant  and  barbarous, 
u  he  might  before   hand  declare  them  idolaters,  and 

*«  there 
I  hiflory  of  religion.  I. 


Seel.  7.      Gospel  fully  Attested.  159 

"  there  is  /cane  a  possibility  of  his  being  mifta- 
*«  ken  t  r"  I  know  no  fatisfactory  account  that  can 
be  given  of  this  exception,  on  the  principles  of  the 
eflayift.  Neverthelefs,  nothing  is  more  eafy,  than 
to  give  a  fatisfactory  account  of  it,  on  the  Chriftian 
principles.  This  account  is  that  which  is  given  by 
the  book  itfelf.  It  is,  that  the  religious  tenets  of  that 
nation  were  not  the  refult  of  their  reafonings,  but 
proceeded  from  divine  revelation.  The  contrail:  we 
difcern  betwixt  the  Israelites,  and  the  ancient 
Greeks  and  Romans,  is  remarkable.  The 
Greeks  and  Romans,  on  all  the  fubjects  of  human 
erudition,  on  all  the  liberal  and  the  ufeful  arts,  rea- 
foned  like  men  ;  on  the  fubjet  of  religion,  they  prated 
like  children,  The  Israelites,  on  the  contrary, 
in  ail  the  fciences  and  arts,  were  children  \  but,  in 
their  notions  of  religion,  they  were  men  ;  in  the 
doctrines,  for  example,  of  the  unity,  the  eternity,  the 
omnipotence,  the  omnifcience,  the  omniprefence, 
the  wifdom,  and  the  goodnefs  of  God ;  in  their 
opinions  concerning  providence,  and  creation,  the 
prefervation  and  government  of  the  world  ;  opinions 
fo  exalted  and  comprehenfive,  as,  even  by  the  au- 
thor's acknowledgment,  could  never  enter  into  the 
th  oughts  of  barbarians. 

But  to  proceed  in  the  revifal :  We  have  here  a 
book,  fays  the  efTayift,  "  wrote  in  all  probability- 
long  after  the  facls  it  relates-"  That  this  book  was 
written  long  zherfome  of  the  facts  it  relates,  is  not  in- 
deed denied  :  that  it  was  written  long  after  all,  or  even 
tnoft  of  thofe  fads,  I   fee  no  reafon  to  believe.     If 

Mr 


Natural  hiftory  of  religion.  I. 


i6o  The  Miracles  of  thf         Part  II, 

Mr  Hume  meant  to  fignify,  by  the  expreffion  quo- 
ted, that  this  was  in  all  probability  the  cafe,  why  did 
he  not  produce  the  grounds  on  which  the  probability 
is  founded  ?  Shall  a  bold  aiTertion  pafs  for  argument  ? 
or  can  it  be  expected,  that  any  one  mould  confider 
reafons,  which  are  only  in  general  fuppofed,  but  not 
fpecified  ? 

He  adds,  ,(  corroborated  by  no  concurring  teftimo- 
«•  ny  ;"  as  little,  fay  I,  invalidated  by  any  contradicl- 
t'ng  teftimony ;  and  both,  for  this  plain  reafon,  be- 
caufe  there  is  no  human  compofition,  that  can  be 
compared  with  this,  in  refpect  of  antiquity.  But 
tho'  this  book  is  not  corroborated  by  the  concurrent 
teftimony  of  any  coeval  hiftories,  becaufe,  if  there 
ever  were  fuch  hiftories,  they  are  not  now  extant ; 
it  is  not  therefore  dsftitute  of  all  collateral  evidence. 
The  following  examples  of  this  kind  of  evidence  de- 
ferve  fome  notice.  The  divifion  of  time  into  weeks, 
which  hath  obtained  in  many  countries,  for  inftance 
among  the  Egyptians,  Chinefe,  Indians,  and  nor- 
thern barbarians  ;  nations  whereof  fome  had  little  or 
no  intercourfe  with  others,  and  were  not  even  known 
by  name   to   the  Hebrews  *:  the  tradition  which  in 

feveral 

*  The  judicious  reader  will  obferve,  that  there  is  a  great  diffe- 
rence between  the  concurrence  of  nations,  in  the  divifion  of  time 
into  -weeks,  and  their  concurrence  in  the  other  periodical  divifi- 
ons,  into  years,  months,  days.  Thefe  divifions  arife  from  fuch 
natural  caufes,  as  are  every  where  obvious;  the  annual  and  di- 
urnal revolutions  of  the  fun,  and  the  revolution  of  the  moon. 
The  divifion  into  weeks,  on  the  contrary,  feems  perfectly  arbi- 
trary :  confequently  its  prevailing  in  diftant  conutries,  among 
nations  which  had  no  communication  with  one  another,  afford 

a  ftrong 


Sect.  7.      Gospel  fully  Attested.  i6i 

feveral  places  prevailed  concerning  the  primeval 
chaos  from  which  the  world  arofe,  the  production  of 
all  living  creatures  out  of  water  and  earth,  by  the 
efficiency  of  a  fupreme  mind  *,  the  formation  of 
O  3  man 

a  ftrong  prefumption,  that  it  muft  have  been  derived  from  fome 
tradition  (as  that  of  the  creation)  which  hath  been  older  than 
the  difperfion  of  mankind  into  different  regions.  'Tis  eafy  to 
conceive,  that  the  practice,  in  rude  and  barbarous  ages,  might 
remain,  thro'  habit,  when  the  tradition,  on  which  it  was  found- 
ed, was  entirely  loft;  'tis  eafy  to  conceive,  that  afterwards,  peo- 
ple addicted  to  idolatry,  or  who,  like  the  Egyptians,  had  be- 
come proficients  in  aftronomy,  mould  aflign  to  the  different 
days  of  the  week,  the  names  of  their  deities,  or  of  the  planets. 

*  This  in  particular  merits  our  attention  the  more,  that  it 
cannot,  by  any  explication,  be  made  to  agree  with  the  doctrine 
which  obtained  among  the  Pagans,  commonly  called  the  Mytho- 
logy. Ovid  is  fo  fenfible  of  this  that,  when  he  mentions  a  dei- 
ty as  the  efficient  caufe  of  the  creation,  he  leaves  him,  as  it  were, 
detached  from  thofe  of  the  popular  fyftem,  which  it  was  his  bu- 
finefs  as  a  poet  to  deliver,  being  at  a  lofe  what  name  to  give  him, 
or  what  place  in  nature  to  affign  him.  Quifquis  fuit  iile  deorum. 
Whichever  of 'the  gods  it  ivas.  He  well  knew  that,  in  all  the  catalogue 
of  their  divinities,  the  god  who  made  the  world  was  not  tobe  found, 
that  thefe  divinities  themfelves  were,  on  the  contary,  produced  out 
of  the  chaos,  as  well  as  men  and  bcafts.  Mr  Hume  in  his  Natu- 
ral hifory  of  religion,  IV.  remarks  this  conduct  in  Ovid,  and  af- 
cribes  it  to  his  having  lived  in  a  learned  age,  and  having,  been 
inflrucled  by  philosophers  in  the  principle  of  a  divine  formation 
of  the  world.  For  my  part,  I  very  much  queftion,  whether  a- 
ny  nation  was  ever  yet  indebted,  for  this  principle,  to  the  difqui- 
fitions  of  philofophers.  Had  this  opinion  never  been  heard  of, 
till  the  Auguftan  age,  it  might  indeed  have  been  fufpe&ed,  that 
it  was  the  daughter  of  philofophy  and  fciencc,  but  fo  far  is  this 
from  being  the  cafe,  that  fome  veil iges  of  it  may  be  traced  even 
in  the  earlieft,  and  moft  ignorant  times.  Thales  the  Mikfian, 
who  lived  many  centuries  before  Ovid,  had,  as  Cicero,  in  his 

firft 


i62  The  Miracles  of  the        Part  II. 

man  lad  of  all,  in  the  image  of  God,  and  his  being 
veiled  with   dominion  over   the   other  animals,   the 

primitive 

firft  book  De  natura  deorumy  informs  us,  attributed  the  origin  of 
all  things  to  God.     Anaxagoras  had  alfo  denominated  the  form- 
ing principle,  which  fevered  the  elements,  created  the  world, 
and  brought  order  out  of  confufion,  intelligence  or  mind      It  is 
therefore  much  more  probable  that  thefe  ancients  owed  this  doc- 
trine to  a  tradition  handed  down  from  the  earlieft  ages,  which 
even  all  the  abfurdities  of  the  theology  they  had  embraced  had 
not  been  able  totally  to  erafe,  tho'  thefe  abfurdities  could  never 
be  made  to  coalefce  with  this  doctrine.     At  the  fame  time  I  ac- 
knowledge, that  there  is  fomething  fo  noble  and  fo  rational  in 
the  principle,    that   the  ivorld  -was  produced  by  an  intelligent  caufey 
that  found  philofophy  will  ever  be  ready  to  adopt  it,  when  once  it 
is  propofed.     But  that  this  opinion  is  not  the  offspring  of  philo- 
fophy, may  be  reafonably  deduced  from  this  confideration  alfo, 
that  they  were  not  the  moft  enlightened  or  philofophic  nations, 
amongft  whom  it  was  maintained  in  greateft  purity.     I  fpeak. 
not  of  the  Hebrews.     Even  the  Parthians,  Medes  and  Perfians, 
whom  the  Greeks  confidered  as  barbarians,  were  genuine  theifts, 
and  notwithftanding  many  fuperilitious  practices  which  prevail- 
ed among  them,  they  held  the  belief  of  one  eternal  God  the  cre- 
ator and  the  lord  of  the  univerfe.     If  this  principle  is  to  be  deri- 
ved from  the  utmoft  improvement  of  the  mind  in  ratiocination 
and  fcience,  which  is  Mr  Hume's  hypothecs,  the  phenomenon 
}uft  now  obferved  is  unaccountable.    If,  on  the  contrary,  it  is  to  be 
derived  originally  from  revelation,  preferved  by  tradition,  thro' 
fucceffive  genrations,  nothing  can  more  eafily  be  accounted  for. 
Traditions  are  always  longeft  retained,  and  moft  purely  tranf- 
mitted,  in  or  near  the  place  where  they  were  firft  received,  and 
amongft  a  people  who  pofiefs  a  ftrong  attachment  to  their  anci- 
ent laws  and  cuftoms.     Migrations  into  diftant  countries,  mix- 
ture of  different  nations,  revolutions  in  government  and  mancrs, 
yea  and  ingenuity  itfelf,  all  contribute  to  corrupt  tradition,  and 
do  fometimes  wholly  efface  it.     This  I  take  to  be  the  only  admif- 
fible  account,  why  fo  rational  and  fo  philosophical  a  principle  pre- 


Se&.  7.         GOSFEL    FULLY    ATTESTED.  163 

primitive  ftate  of  innocence  and  happinefs :  the  fub- 
fequent  degeneracy  of  mankind  :  their  deftrudYion  by 
a  flood  :and  the  prefervation  of  one  family  in  a  veflel. 
Nay,  which  is  ftill  ftronger,  I  might  plead  the  vefti- 
ges  of  fome  fuch  cataftrophe  as  the  deluge,  which, 
the  (hells  and  other  marine  bodies,  that  are  daily  dug 
out  of  the  bowels  of  the  earth,  in  places  remote 
from  the  fea,  do  clearly  exhibit  to  us :  I  might  urge 
the  traces,  which  ftill  remain  in  ancient  hiltories, 
of  the  migration  of  people  and  of  fcience  from  Ada 
(which  hath  not  improperly  been  ftyled  the  cradle  of 
the  arts)  into  many  parts  both  of  Africa  and  Europe  : 
I  might  plead  the  coincidence  of  thofe  migrations, 
and  of  the  origin  of  ftates  and  kingdoms,  with  the 
time  of  the  difperfion  of  the  pofterity  of  Noah. 

But  to  return  :  The  author  fubjoins,  •'  rcfem- 
"  bling  thofe  fabulous  accounts,  which  every  nation 
M  gives  of  its  origin."  'Tis  unluckily  the  fate  of  ho- 
ly writ  with   this  author  that  both  its  refemblance, 

and 

vailed  moft  in  ages  and  countries  in  which  reafon  and  philofophy 
feemed  to  be  but  in  their  infancy.  The  notion,  that  the  Greeks 
borrowed  their  opinions  on  this  fubject  from  the  books  of  Mo- 
fes,  a  notion  for  which  fome  Tewifh  writers,  fome  Chriftian  fa- 
thers, and  even  fome  moderns  have  warmly  contended,  appears 
void  of  all  foundation.  Thefe  opinions  in  Greece,  as  hath  been 
obferved,  were  of  a  very  early  date;  whereas  that  there  exifled 
fuch  a  people  as  the  Jews,  feems  fcarce  to  have  been  known  there 
till  about  the  time  of  the  Macedonian  conquefts.  No  fooner 
were  they  known  than  they  were  hated,  and  their  laws  and  cuf- 
toms  univerfally  defpifed.  Nor  is  there  the  fhadow  of  reafon  to 
think,  that  the  Greeks  knew  any  thing  of  the  facred  writings 
till  a  confiderable  time  afterwards,  when  that  verfion  of  them 
was  made  into  their  language  which  is  called  The  tranjlation  °f 
the  Seventy , 


164     The     miracles    of    the  Part  II. 

and  its  want  of  refemblance,  to  the  accounts  of  other 
authors,  are  alike  prefumptions  againft  it.  He  hath 
not  indeed  told  us,  wherein  it  refembles  fabulous  ac- 
counts :  and,  for  my  part,  tho'  the  charge  were  juft 
I  mould  imagine,  little  or  nothing  to  the  difadvantage 
of  the  Pentateuch,  could  be  deduced  from  it.  It  is  u- 
niverfally  agreed  among  the  learned,  that  even  the 
mod  abfurd  fables  of  idolaters,  derive  their  origin 
from  facts,  which  having  been,  in  barbarous  ages, 
tranfmitted  only  by  oral  tradition,  have  come  at 
length  to  be  grofsly  corrupted  and  disfigured.  'Tis 
neverthelefs  probable,  that  fuch  fictions  would  ftill 
retain  fome  (tricking  features  of  thofe  truths,  from 
which  they  fprung.  And  if  the  books  of  Mofes  re- 
femble,  in  any  thing,  the  fabulous  accounts  of  other 
nations,  it  would  not  perhaps  be  difficult  to  prove, 
that  they  refemble  only  whatever  is  lead  fabulous  in 
thefe  accounts.  That  this  will  be  found  to  be  the 
cafe,  we  may  reafonably  prefume,  even  from  what 
hath  been  obferved  already  ;  and  if  fo,  the  refem- 
blance,  fo  far  from  being  an  argument  againft  thofe 
books,  is  evidently  an  argument  in  their  favour. 
In  order  to  remove  any  doubt  that  may  remain  on 
this  head,  it  ought  to  be  attended  to,  that,  in  a  num- 
ber of  concurrent  teiYimonies,  (where  there  could  have 
been  no  previous  concert)  there  is  a  probability  in- 
dependent of  that  which  refults  from  our  faith  in  the 
witneiTes  :  nay,  mould  the  witnefles  be  of  fuch  a  cha- 
racter as  to  merit  no  faith  at  all.  This  probability 
arifeth  from  the  concurrence  itfelf.  That  fuch  a  con- 
currence mould  fpring  from  chance,  is  as  one  to  infinite, 
in  other  words,  morally  impoflible  :  if  therefore  con- 
cert be  excluded,  there  remains  no  other  caufe  but 
the  reality  of  the  fa 61.  Tis 


Sect.  7.      Gospel  fully  Attested.  165 

'Tistrue,  that  "  upon  reading  this  book,  we  find  it 
«  ful  of  prodigies  and  miracles  :  "  but  'tis  alfo  true, 
that  many  of  thofe  miracles  are  fuch,  as  the  fubject 
it  treats  of,  mud  unavoidably  make  us  expect.  For 
a  proof  of  this  pofition,  I  need  but  refer  the  reader  to 
the  principles  eftablifhed  in  the  preceding  fection. 
No  book  in  the  world  do  we  find  written  in  a  more 
fimple  ftyle  ;  no  where  does  there  appear  in  it,  the 
leaft  affectation  of  ornament  ;  yet  nowhere  elfe  is 
the  Almighty  reprefented,  as  either  acting  or  fpeak- 
ing  in  a  manner  fo  becoming  the  eternal  ruler  oi  the 
world.  Compare  the  account  of  the  creation 
which  is  given  by  Mofes,  with  the  ravings  of  San- 
choniatho  the  Phenician  philofopher,  which  he  had 
dignified  with  the  title  of  cosmogony  :  or  compare 
it  with  the  childirti  extravagancies  of  the  Greek  and 
Latin  poets,  fo  juftly  likened  by  the  author  to  a  fick 
mans  dreams*;  and  then  fay,  whether  any  perfon  of 
candour  and  difcernment  will  not  be  difpofed  to  ex- 
claim in  the  word,  of  the  prophet,  What  is  the  chaff 
to  the  wheat  t!  The  account  is  what  we  fhould  call 
in  reference  to  experience,  miraculous.  But  was  it 
poilible  it  mould  be  otherwife  ?  I  believe  the 
greateft  infidel  will  not  deny,  that-  it  is  at  leaft 
as  plaufible  an  opinion  that  the  world  had  a  be- 
gining,  as  that  it  had  not.  If  it  had,  can  it  be 
imagined  by  any  man  in  his  fenfes,  that  that  particu*. 
lar  quality  "mould  be  an  objection  to  the  narrative, 
which  he  previouily  knows  it  mud  have  ?  Mud  not 
the  firft  production  of  things,  the  original  formation 
of  animals  and  vegetables,  require  exertions  of  pow- 
er 

*  Natural  hiftory  of  religion.  XV, 

t  Jer.  xxiii.  z8. 


166  The  Miracles  of  the       Part  II. 

er,  which,  in  prefervation  and  propagation,  can  never 
be  exemplified } 

It  will  perhaps  be  objected,  That  if  the  miracles 
continued  no  longer,  and  extended  no  further,  than 
theneceiTity  of  creation  required,  this  reafoning  would 
bejuft;  but  that  in  facl  they  both  continued  much 
longer,  and  extended  much  further.  The  anfwer 
is  obvious  :  it  is  impofHble  for  us  to  judge,  how  far 
the  neceflity  of  the  cafe  required.  Immediately  af- 
ter the  creation,  things  muft  have  been  in  a  itate  ve- 
ry different  from  that  which  they  are  in  at  prefenl. 
How  long  that  itate  might  continue,  we  have  not 
the  means  of  difcovering  :  but  as,  in  human  in- 
fancy, 'tis  neceffary  that  the  feeble  creature  fhould, 
for  fome  time,  be  carried  in  the  nurfe's  arms, 
and  afterwards,  by  the  help  of  leading  firings,  be 
kept  from  falling,  before  he  acquire,  ftrength  to  walk  ; 
'tis  not  unlikely,  that  in  the  infancy  of  the  world,  fuch 
interpofitions  fhould  be  more  frequent  and  requifite, 
till  nature  attainining  a  certain  maturity,  thofe  laws 
and  that  confutution  mould  be  eftablifhed,  which  we 
now  experience.  It  will  greatly  ftrengthen  this 
conclufion,  to  reflect,  that  in  every  fpecies  of  natural 
productions,  with  which  we  are  acquainted,  we 
invariably  obferve  a  fimilar  feeblenefs  m  the  indivi- 
duals on  their  firft  appearance,  and  a  fimilar  gradation 
towards  a  (late  of  greater  perfection  and  (lability.  Be- 
fides,  if  we  acknowledge  the  neceflity  of  the  exerti- 
on of  a  power,  which  only  in  reference  to  our  expe- 
rience is  called  miraculous,  the  queftion,  as  is  well 
obferved  by  the  judicious  prelate  formerly  quoted  *, 
"  whether  this    power  (topped  immediately,  after  it 

"had 

*  Analogy  of  religion,  fcrV.  part  a.  chap.  a.  fe<3.2. 


Sect.  7.        GOSPEL       FUTLY      ATTESTED.  l6j 

,f  had  made  man,  or  went  on  and  exerted  itfelf  farther, 
"  is  a  queftion  of  the  fame  kind,  as  whether  an  or- 
**  dinary  power  exerted  itfelf  i»  fuch  a  particular  de- 
"  gree  and  manner,  or  not."  It  cannot  therefore,  if 
we  think  reafonably  on  this  fubject,  greatly  aftonifh 
us,  that  fuch  a  book  mould  give  "  an  account  of  a 
"  ftate  of  the  world,  and  of  human  nature,  entirely 
«  different  from  the  prefent ;  of  our  fall  from  that  ftate ; 
u  of  the  age  of  man  extended  to  near  a  thoufand  years; 
"  and  of  the  deftruction  of  the  world  by  a  de- 
"  luge." 

Finally,  if,  in  fuch  a  book,  mingled  with  the  ex- 
cellencies I  have  remarked,  there  mould  appear  fome 
difficulties,  fome  things  for  which  we  are  not  able 
to  account ;  for  inftance,  H  the  arbitrary  choice  of 
«'  one  people,  as  the  favourites  of  Heaven  ;  and  their 
"  deliverance  from  bondage  by  prodigies  the  mod 
««  aftonifhing  imaginable  ;"  is  there  any  thing  more 
extraordinary  here,  than,  in  a  compofition  of  this 
nature,  we  might  have  previoufly  expected  to  find? 
We  muft  be  immoderately  conceited  of  our  own  un- 
derstandings, if  we  imagine  otherwife.  Thofe  fa- 
vourites of  Heaven,  it  muft  be  likewife  owned,  are 
the  countrymen  of  the  writer  ;  but  of  fuch  a  writer* 
as  of  all  hiftorians  or  annalifts,  ancient  or  modern* 
fhows  the  leaft  difpofition  to  flatter  his  countrymen. 
Where,  I  pray,  do  we  find  him,  either  celebrating 
their  virtues,  or  palliating  their  vices  ;  either  extolling 
their  genius,  or  magnifying  their  exploits  ?  Add  to 
all  thefe,  that,  in  every  thing  which  is  not  exprefsly 
afcribed  to  the  interpofal  of  Heaven,  the  relation  is 
in  itfelf  plaufible,  the  incidents  are  natural,  the  cha- 
racters 


168  The  Miracles  of  the         Part  II. 

rafters  and  manners  fuch  as  are  admirably  adapted  to 
thofe  early  ages  of  the  world.  In  thefe  particulars, 
there  is  no  affectation  of  the  marvellous  ;  there  are  no 
"  defcriptions  of  fea  and  land  monfters ;  no  relations 
u  of  wonderful  adventures,  ftrange  men,  and  un- 
"  couth  manners*." 

When  all  thefe  things  are  ferioufly  attended  to,  I 
perfuade  myfelf,  that  no  unprejudiced  perfon  will 
think,  that  the  Pentateuch  bears  falfehood  on  the 
face  of  it,  and  deferves  to  be  rejected  without  ex- 
amination. On  the  contrary,  every  unprejudiced 
perfon  will  find  (I  fay  not,  that  its  falfehood  would 
be  more  miraculous,  then  all  the  miracles  it  relates ; 
this  is  a  language  which  I  do  not  underftand,  and 
which  only  ferves  to  darken  a  plain  queftion  ;  but  I 
fay,  he  will  find)  very  many  and  very  ftrong  in- 
dications of  authenticity  and  truth  ;  and  will  con- 
clude, that  all  the  evidences,  both  intrinfic  and  ex- 
trinfic,  by  which  it  is  fupported,  ought  to  be  im- 
partially canvaffed.  Abundant  evidences  there  are  of 
both  kinds  ;  fome  hints  of  them  have  been  given  in 
this  feclion  ;  but  to  confider  them  fully,  falls  not 
within  the  limits  of  my  prefent  purpofe. 


CON- 
f  p.  i«5- 


(     i69     ) 

CONCLUSION. 

WHat  is  the  fum  of  all  that  hath  been  now 
difcuffed  r  It  is  briefly  this  :  That  the  au- 
thsrs  favaurke  argument,  of  which  he  boajis  the  dif- 
covery,  is  founded  in  error*,  is  managed  with  fophiftryf, 
and  is  at  lajl  abandoned  by  its  inventor^,  as  ft  only  for 
/how,  not  for  ufe ;  that  he  is  not  more  fuccefful  in  the 
collateral  arguments  he  employs;  particularly ,  that  there 
is  no  peculiar  prefumption  againjl  religious  miracles  §; 
that j  on  the  contrary,  there  is  a  peculiar  prefumption  in 
their  favour  || ;  that  the  general  maxim,  whereby  he 
would  enable  us  to  decide  betwixt  oppojite  miracles,  when 
it  isflript  of  the  pompous  diction,  that  ferves  it  at 
for  decoration,  and  for  difguife,  is  difcovered  to  b, 
other  than  an  identical  proportion,-  which,  as  it  conveys 
?:q  knowledge,  can  be  ofnofervice  to  the  caufe  of  truth  €[  ; 
that  there  is  no  prefumption,  arifing  either  from  human 
nature  +,  or  from  the  hi/lory  of  inanhindt,  againft 
the  miracles  faid  to  have  been  wrought  in  proof  of  Chri- 
Jlianity  ;  that  the  evidence  of  thefe  is  not  fubverted  by 
thofe  miracles,  vjhich  hijlorians  of  other  religions  have 
recorded^;  that  neither  the  Pagan  \,  nor  the  Pcpifh€\ 
miracles,  on  which  he  hath-  expatiated,  will  bear  to  be 
compared  with  thfe  of  'holy  writ ;  that,  abfira£iing from 
the  evidence  for  particular  fads,  we  have  irrefragable 
evidence,  that  there  have  been  miracles  in  former  times  t; 
and,  Lifily,  that  his  examination  of  the  Pentateuch  is 
P  both 

*  Part  I.  feci,  i.         f  Sect.- 1.         \  Seel.  3,  §  Seel,  a.* 

ft  Sedt.  5.  ^  Sect.  6.  f  Part-2.   feet.  1,  j  Sect.  i> 

i  Part  2.  feci.  3,  i|   Seel.  5.  *JSef£  &i  f  Sef:.  fc 


once 
e  no 


170  Conclusion. 

both  partial  and  imperfdft,  and  confequently  flaxds  in  need, 
•fa  revifal*. 

u  Our  mod  holy  religion,"  fays  the  author  in 
the  conclufion  of  his  efTay,  a  is  founded  on  faith, 
•«  not  on  reafon ;  and  'tis  a  fure  method  of  expofing 
<«  it,  to  put  it  to  fuch  a  trial,  as  it  is  by  no  means 
"  fitted  to  endure."  If,  by  our  mojl  holy  religisn^ 
we  are  to  underftand  the  fundamental  articles  of  the 
Chriftian  f)  ftem,  thefe  have  their  foundation  in  the 
nature  and  decrees  of  God  ;  and,  as  they  are  antece- 
dent to  our  faith  or  reafonings,  they  mutt  be  alfo  in-* 
dependent  of  both.  If  they  are  true,  our  difbelief 
can  never  make  them  falfe  ;  if  they  are  falfc,  the 
belief  of  all  the  world  will  never  make  them  true. 
But  as  the  only  queflion  between  Mr  Hume  and  the 
defenders  of  the  gofpel,  is,  Whether  there  is  reafon 
to  believe  thofe  articles  r  he  can  only  mean  by  our 
m:ft  holy  religion,  our  belief  of  the  Chrifrian  doctrine  i 
and  concerning  this  belief  we  are  told,  that-  it  is 
founded  on  faith,  not  on  reafon  \  that  is,  our  faith 
is  founded  on  our  faith  ;  in  other  words,  it  hath  no 
foundation,  it  is  a  mere  chimera,  the  creature  of  a 
diftcmpered  brain.  I  fay  not  on  the  contrary,  that 
cur  mojl  holy  religion  is  founded  on  reafon,  becaufe  this 
expreihon,  in  my  opinion,  is  both  ambiguous  and 
inaccurate ;  but  I  fay  that  we  have  fufficient  reafon 
for  the  belief  of  our  religion  ;  or,  to  exprefs  myfelf 
in  the  words  of  an  apoftle,  that  the  Chriftian,  if  it  is 
not  his  own  fault,  may  be  ready  always  to  give  an 
unfue  r  to  every  man,  that  afketh  him  a  reason  of  his 

So 

♦Sea.  7. 


Conclusion.  171 

So  far  therefore  am  I  from  being  afraid  of  expofing 
Chriftianity  by  fubmitting  it  to  the  teft  of  reafon  ; 
fo  far  am  I  from  judging-  this  a  trial,  which  it  is  by 
no  means  fitted  to  endure,  that  I  think,  on  the  con- 
trary, the  molt  violent  attacks  that  have  been  made 
upon  the  faith  of  Jefus,  have  been  of  fervice  to  it. 
Yes:  I  do  not  hefitate  to  affirm,  that  our  religion 
hath  been  indebted  to  the  attempts,  tho'  not  to  the 
intentions,  of  its  bittereft  enemies.  They  have  tried 
its  ftrength"  indeed,  and,  by  trying,  they  have  dif- 
played  its  ftrength ;  and  that  in  fo  clear  a  light,  as  we 
could  never  have  hoped,  without  fuch  a  trial, 
to  have  viewed  it  in.  Let  them  therefore  write,  let 
them  argue,  and,  when  arguments  fail,  even  let 
them  cavil  againft  religion  as  much  as  theypleafe: 
I  mould  be  heartily  forry,  that  ever  in  this  iiland,  the 
afylum  of  liberty,  where  the  fpirit  of  Chriftianity 
is  better  underftood  (however  defective  the  inhabi- 
tants are  in  the  obfervance  of  its  precepts)  than  in 
any  other  part  of  the  Chriftian  world  ;  I  mould, 
I  fay,  be  forry,  that  in  this  ifland,  fo  great  adiflervice 
wrere  done  to  religion,  as  to  check  its  adverfaries, 
in  any  other  way,  than  by  returning  a  candid  anfwer 
to  their  objections.  I  muft  at  the  fame  time  ac- 
knowledge, that  I  am  both  afhamed  and  grieved, 
when  I  obferve  any  friends  of  religion,  betray  fo  great 
a  diffidence  in  the  goodnefs  of  their  caufe  (for  to 
this  diffidence  it  can  only  be  imputed)  as  to  fhow  an 
inclination  for  recurring  to  more  forcible  methods. 
The  affinal  ts  of  infidels,  I  may  venture  to  prophefy, 
will  never  overturn  our  religion.  They  will  prove 
not  more  hurtful  to  the  Chriftian  fyftem,  if  'tis  al- 
lowed 


I  72  C    O    N    C      L    U    S    I    O    N. 

1  owed  to  compote  fmall  things  -with  great,  than  the 
boiflerous  winds  are  faid  to  prove  to  the  fturdy  oak. 
They  make  it  impetuouily  for  a  time,  and  loudly 
threaten  its  fubverfion  ;  whilft,  in  effect,  they  only 
ferve  to  make  it  (trike  its  roots  the  deeper,  and  ftand 
the  firmer  ever  after. 

One  word  more  with  theeiTayift,  and  I  have  done. 
-"  Upon  the  whole,"  fays  he,  "  we  may  conclude, 
"  that  the  Chrijlian  religion,  not  only  was  at  firft  atten- 
n  ded  with  miracles,  but  even,  at  this  day,  cannot 
««  be  believed  by  any  reafonable  perfon  without  one. 
41  Mere  reafon  is  infufficient  to  convince  us  of  its  ve- 
*f  racity;  and  whoever  is  moved  by  faith  to  affent  to 
"  it ;"  that  is,  whoever  by  his  belief  is  induced  to 
beliere  it,  "  is  confeioug  of  a  continued  miracle  in  his 
u  own  perfon,  which  fubverts  all  the  principles  of 
f(  his  underflanding,  and  gives  him  a  determination 
"  to  believe,  what  is  mod:  contrary  to  cuftom  and  ex- 
"  perience."  An  author  is  never  fo  fure  of  writing 
unanfwerably,  as  when  he  writes  altogether  unintel- 
ligibly. 'Tis  impofiible  that  you  mould  fight  your 
enemy  before  you  find  him  ;  and  if  he  hath  fcreened 
himfelf  in  darknefs,  'tis  next  to  impofTible  that  you 
mould  find  him.  Indeed,  if  any  meaning  can  be  ga- 
thered from  that  firange  afTemblage  of  words  jufi:  now 
quoted,  it  feems  to  be  one  or  other  of  thefe  which 
follow  :  either,  That  there  are  not  any  in  the  World, 
who  believe  the  gofpel ;  or,  That  there  is  no  want 
of  miracles  in  our  own  time.  How  either  of  thefe 
remarks,  if  juff,  can  contribute  to  the  author's  pur- 
pofe,  it  will  not,  I  fufpecr,  be  eafy  to  difcover.     If 

the 


Conclusion. 


*13 


the  fecond  remark  is  true,  if  there  is  no  want  of  mi- 
racles at  prefent,  furely  experience  cannot  be  pleaded 
againft  the  belief  of  miracles  faid  to  have  been  per- 
formed in  time  part.  Again,  if  the  firft  remark  is 
true,  if  there  are  not  any  in  the  world  who  believe 
the  gofpel,  becaufe,  as  Mr  Hume  fuppofeth,  a  mi- 
racle cannot  be  believed  without  a  new  miracle,  why 
all  this  ado  to  refute  opinions  which  nobody  enter- 
tains r  Certainly,  to  ufe  his  own  words,  u  The 
"  knights-errant,  who  wandered  about  to  clear  the 
°  world  of  dragons  and  giants,  never  entertained  the 
u  the  leaft  doubt  concerning  the  exigence  of  thefe 
■"  monfters  *." 

Might  I  prefume  faintly  to  copy  but  the  manner  of 
lb  inimitable  an  original,  as  the  author  hath  exhibi- 
ted in  his  concluding  words,  I  mould  alfo  conclude 
upon  the  whole,  That  miracles  are  capable  of  proof 
from  teftimony,  and  there  is  a  full  proof  of  this  kind, 
for  thofe  faid  lo  have  been  wrought  in  fupport  of  Chri- 
stianity ;  that  whoever  is  moved,  by  Mr  Hume's  in- 
genious argument,  to  affert,  that  no  teftimony  can 
.give  fufficient  evidence  of  miracles,  admits  for  reafon, 
tho'  perhaps  unconfcious,  a  mere  fubttfty,  which 
fubverts  the  evidence  of  teftimony,  of  hiilory,  and  e- 
ven  of  experience  itfelf,  giving  him  a  determination 
to  deny,  what  the  common  fenfeof  mankind,  founded 
in  the  primary  principles  of  the  understanding,  would 
lead  him  to  believe. 

f  Seethe  firft  paragraph  of  Effay   12.     Of  the  academical   or 
fccptical  philofophy. 

THE      END 


PROPOSAL.?, 
By    THOMAS    D  0  B  S  0  N, 

For  Printing  by  Subscription, 
THE 

FOUR     GOSPELS; 

TRANSLATED  FROM  THE  GREEK, 

WITH 

PRELIMINARY    DISSERTATIONS, 

AKD 

Notes,  Critical  and  Explanatory. 


GEOUGE  CAMPBELL,   D.D.  F.R.S.      Edinburgh; 

MINCIPAL    OP    MARI8CHAL  COtLIGE,    ABERDEEN. 

CONDITIONS. 

I  .The  Work  will  be  printed  on  a  fuperfine  paper,  and  with  a 
good  type,  in  two  large  o&avo  volumes 

II.  It  will  be  delivered  to  fubfcribers  at  One  Dollar  and  tw& 
thirds  for  each  volume,  fewed  in  boards; — one  dollar 
whereof  to  be  paid  at  the  time  of  fubfcribing,  one  dollar 
and  one  half  on  the  delivery  of  the  firffc  volume,  and  the 

remainder   on  delivery  of  the  fecond. The  price  to  non- 

fubfcribers  will  be  Two  Dollars  per  volume. 

III.  The  Work  will  be  put  to  prefs  as  foon  as  £x  hundred 
copies  are  fubfcribed  for. 


CONDITIONS 

On  which  the  American  Edition  ofth:  ENCTCLO- 
P  JED  Id  isfurnijked  to  fubftribers*. 

I.  The  work  is  printed  on  a  fuperfine  paper,  and  new  types  (caft 
for  the  purpofe  by  Baine  &  C°  Philadelphia)  which  will  be 
occafionally  renewed  before  they  contract  a  worn  appearance,  j 

IJ.  It  is  publifhed  in  weekly  numbers,  at  ONE  QUARTER 
OF  A  DOLLAR  each;  and  the  publication  will  be  continu- 
ed with  all  poffible  regularity.  No  book  to  be  delivered,  on 
any  confederation,  unlefs  the  money  be  paid  at  the  fame  time. 

HI.  Each  number  contains  forty  pages  of  letter-prefs,  clofely 
printed ;  and  from  a  view  of  the  materials  as  now  arranged, 
it  is  fuppofed  the  whole  may  extend  to  three  hundred  num- 
bers, or  fifteen  volumes  in  quarto;  but  whether,  or  how  far, 
thefe  limits  may  be  eventually  exceeded",  muft  depend  upon 
the  number  and  value  of  the  literary  productions  and  fcientific 
difcoveries  that  fhall  occur,  or  the  hints  and  communication 
that  may  be  received,  during  the  progrefeof  the  work. 

W.  Thofe  who  do  not  choofe  to  take  the  work  in  numbers, 
may  have  it  in  volumes,  or  half  volumes,  as  publifheci :  the 
volumes  being  delivered  in  parts,  at  TWENTY  SHILl 
(Penfylvania  corrency)  each  in  boards,  or  FI.VE  DOLLARS 
for  the  volume  complete.  Of  thole  who  take  the  work  in  vo- 
lumes or  half-volumes,  do  money  is  required  untu  the  firir  vo- 
lume is  furniihed,  when  payment  of  the  hxfl  and  fecond  volumes 
is  to  be  made;  and  the  payment  of  each  fucceeding  volume  to 
be  made  on  the  delivery  of  the  volume  preceding  it. 

V.  In  the  courfe  of  the  publication  will  be  delivered  nearly  FOUR. 
HUNDRED  COPPERPLATES,  elegantly  engraved;— 
which  by  far  exceed  in  number  thofe  given  in  any  other  Scien- 
tific dictionary. 

VI.  At  the  clofe  of  the  publication  will  be  delivered,  an  elegant 
Frontifpiece,  the  Dedication,  Preface,  and  prooer  Title  pa- 
ges for  the  different  volumes. 

The  firft  volume  is  ready  for  delivery. — Subfcri prions 
are  ftill  received  by  Tho.mas  Dobs  on,  and  by  all 
ethers  intruded  with  Propofals. 


BOOKS 

Printed  fir,  and  Sold  by 

THOMAS     DOBSON, 

At  the  Stone-House,   in  Second -fire et,   between 
Market  and  Chefnut-ilreet,  Philadelphia. 

SMITH'S  Inquiry  into  the  Nature  and  Caufes  of  the  Wealth  of 
Nations      Price,  22/6. 

Nichclfon's  Introduction  to  Natural  Philofophy  (iliuftrateiwitfe. 
25  copperplates).     22/6. 

Paley's  Moral  and  Political  Philofophy.     rjj. 

Watts's  Logic.      6s. 

Fordyce's  Sermons  to  Young  Women.     6s. ' 

Price's  Sermons.     5s. 

Percival's  Moral  Tales,     2/9- Fine  paper,  5*. 

Collin's,  and   Hammond's,   poetical  Works.     3/9 

The  Shipwreck  ;  a  poem.     is.      (iewed) 

Prefent  for  an  Apprentice,     if  6 . 

Alphonfo  and  Dalinda ;  a  moral  Tale,  from  the  French  of  Ma- 
dame Genlis.     5*. 

Adventures  of  Alphonfo.     1/6 

Crawford  on  Animal  Heat.     3/9. 

Rigby  on  Uterine  Flemorrhage.     3/9. 

Beatie's  Evidences  of  Chriftianity.     $s.     Fine,  4s. 

More's  Sacred  Drama,  for  young  perfons ;   the   fubjecls  take* 
from  the  Bible.     5J. 

Moore's  Fables  for  the  Ladies,  with  Langhorne's  Fables  of  Fle- 
ra.     3f9. 

Charlotte     Smith's   Elegiac  Sonnets.     is. 

Pope's  Effay  on  Man.      if 6. 

Goldfmith's  Deferted  Village.      Is. 

Young's  Poem  on  the  Laft  Day.     is 

Search  after  Happinefs.     1/6. 

Armftrong's  Art  of  preferving  Health  ;  a  poem.     2s. 

George  Buchanan's  Jefts  and  Exploits.      Is. 

Man  of  real  fenfibility  ;  or,  the  Hiftory  of  Sir  George  Ellifofi; 
1/6. 

Thoughts  on  the  Importance  of  the  Manners  of  the  Great  t* 
Cenerai  Society,     is. 


': 


g# 


iiKHWP1 


'"<'•     ,T.f  ■ 


wmm 


mam        ml 


H 


H^£« 


Hkro 


H  Sw6 


